ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Construction Sector

Russell Brown: What steps the Government is taking to stimulate demand in the construction sector in Scotland.

Jim Sheridan: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the construction industry in Scotland.

Michael Moore: I recognise the vital role that the construction industry plays in the Scottish and UK economy. The plan for growth includes a wide range of measures to support the industry across the UK. I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on these and other matters of importance to the Scottish economy.

Russell Brown: May I say to the Secretary of State that his Under-Secretary and I have one thing in common? We still have construction workers who remain unemployed after R & D Construction went into administration earlier this year. Does the Secretary of State fully recognise that throughout the UK, and especially in Scotland, there are far too many unemployed construction workers, who desperately want to get back to work? He needs to encourage the Scottish Government to stimulate that sector.

Michael Moore: I agree that we must take all appropriate measures to get the economy on the right footing. As he will appreciate, we have a big challenge clearing up the mess left by the previous Government and the challenging situation in the eurozone, but we are determined, through our credible deficit plan and with a strong economy, to get construction and other sectors in the right place.

Jim Sheridan: The Secretary of State might be aware of the major lobby today by construction workers throughout the UK, many of them from Scotland. They are concerned about proposals by six national construction companies to change the national agreement for electricians. Given what is going on in Scotland, when he next meets the First Minister will he remind him of the excellent work being done in both Parliaments in providing quality partnerships? The proposal by those construction companies could undermine all that good work.

Michael Moore: I agree that it is vital that the UK Government and the Scottish Government work together. Whether that is on terms and conditions or on the general state of the economy, it is extremely important. We as the UK Government have taken important steps to support the Scottish Government in their efforts with the economy.

John Thurso: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable construction activity taking place prior to deployment of marine energy in the Pentland firth, particularly at places such as Scrabster harbour? What more can this Government do to ensure that the right infrastructure is constructed now so that we benefit from the opportunity of marine renewable energy in the future?

Michael Moore: As my hon. Friend knows, through our plan for growth, which sets out the basis on which we will support the economy through these difficult times—cutting corporation tax, reducing the burden of income tax, reducing the national insurance burden and, with a huge investment in marine renewables, reforming the energy market—we are laying the foundations for that important sector to develop. It is important that that is not undermined by the uncertainty that the independence referendum is causing in Scotland at present.

Angus Robertson: A competitive tax position is vital for the construction sector and the rest of the Scottish economy. That is why the Scottish Government have called for the devolution of corporation tax powers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government are actively considering the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have had a consultation about corporation tax devolution to Northern Ireland and we are reviewing the responses to it. I wish we could say the same for the response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on their corporation tax proposals. We have asked a series of fundamental questions about the proposals but they have gone unanswered. We have yet to see the consultation responses, so I suggest the hon. Gentleman ask his friend the First Minister to get on with that.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State has taken the opportunity in the past to say that the UK Government will consider the devolution of corporation tax powers to Scotland, but Dr Graham Gudgin, an adviser to the Northern Ireland Secretary, confirmed in evidence to the Scottish Parliament that the UK Government have already ruled out the devolution of corporation tax “under any circumstances”. Both statements cannot be true, so which is true?

Michael Moore: We have said that we want to consider any valid proposals brought forward by the Scottish Government, but they must first establish a credible, detailed position, maintain the consensus across the parties and ensure that there is no detriment to Scotland or the rest of the UK. The Scottish National party and the First Minister have so far failed to deliver the detail.

Margaret Curran: I ask the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to the concerns raised this morning about the construction
	industry in Scotland, where 10,000 jobs have been lost this year and the number of companies facing bankruptcy has risen by 135% in the past two years. With that in mind, will he support Labour’s call, and that of the Scottish Building Federation, for a one-year cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%, a specific action to help boost the construction industry and get the Scottish economy moving again?

Michael Moore: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post, without, if I may say so, wishing her too much success in it. She brings a great deal of experience to the House and I look forward to our encounters. We have heard Labour’s proposals for reducing VAT, but I have to tell her that when that was last done it did not deliver the hoped-for outcome. As we are seeing across the eurozone, countries cannot spend their way out of a debt crisis. We need a credible plan and we have to deliver on it, which is what we are doing.

Margaret Curran: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind opening remarks and look forward to robust debates and work in the coming years. I am sorry to say that his answer is completely inadequate, because previous VAT cuts did deliver growth. The Government’s failed policies mean that they are set to borrow £46 billion more this year, rather than reduce the deficit. In reality, Scots face a double-whammy: a Tory-led Government cutting too far and too fast, and an SNP Government presiding over stagnant growth and cuts in capital spending. Scotland is in the midst of a crisis—a jobs crisis and a growth crisis. If he will not follow Labour’s five-point plan to boost jobs and growth in Scotland, what specific action will the Government take in Scotland and for Scotland to get our economy moving again?

Michael Moore: The hon. Lady cannot skip so lightly away from the mess we inherited from the previous Government: the highest deficit in peacetime history and we were borrowing £1 for every £4 we spent, which was simply unsustainable. It is absolutely vital that we keep to our credible deficit reduction plan and deliver on the plan for growth by cutting corporation tax, maintaining low interest rates and reducing regulatory and national insurance burdens. As far as Scotland is concerned, I agree that the tax hike in the Scottish Government’s spending review is bad for business. They must acknowledge that we have helped with pre-payments for the replacement Forth crossing and by making land available from the Ministry of Defence. We are helping the Scottish Government in many ways.

Scottish Independence

Kevin Brennan: Whether he has a policy on a threshold that would be required to vote in favour of independence before legislating for Scottish independence.

Michael Moore: The Government have no such policy. The Scottish Government have said that they will introduce proposals for a referendum, and we urge them to end the delay and uncertainty by doing so. Whenever there is a referendum, the UK Government will make the case for a prosperous Scotland in a modern UK.

Kevin Brennan: Should not any referendum that has profound implication for Wales, Northern Ireland and England as well as Scotland involve an absolutely clear and straightforward choice between remaining in the UK and separation, rather than muddying the waters with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has called the “I can’t believe it’s not independence” option?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. With a BBC poll at the weekend showing that barely a quarter of Scots favour independence, it is no great surprise that the SNP is taking Scotland for granted and running away from an independence poll. It is creating uncertainty that is damaging for business. Let us have a clear question and get on with it.

Eleanor Laing: In considering Scottish independence, has the Secretary of State seen recent legal advice stating that an independent Scotland would be either outside the European Union, and therefore would lose EU funding and access to free markets, or required to join the euro as a new accession state? Does he agree that that is further evidence that breaking up the UK would be bad for the people of Scotland?

Michael Moore: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The idea that the SNP can take it for granted that Scotland would enter the EU without negotiation and consideration of such issues is entirely fanciful. That is part of the uncertainty that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Stewart Hosie: On 8 May the Scottish Secretary ruled out a 40% rule in a rigged referendum. He also said that the referendum was entirely a matter for the Scottish Government and that he would not be raising any constitutional questions. Does he stand by that?

Michael Moore: I do not think we should take any lessons on rigged referendums from the hon. Gentleman’s party, which is determined not to have a straightforward question on Scottish independence—the whole reason it exists—but to bring in other issues as well. Let us get a straightforward question now and end the damaging uncertainty.

Departmental Administrative Costs

Peter Bone: What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in his Department.

David Mundell: Scotland Office Ministers are determined that the Office contribute to the Government’s task of reducing the budget deficit. I and my officials are bearing down hard on administrative costs through a range of efficiency measures, including using framework contracts negotiated by other Government bodies, sharing resources with the other territorial offices and making more efficient use of leasehold property.

Peter Bone: The Prime Minister wants to see smaller and more effective government. Only last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland called for the abolition
	of the Scotland Office. Would the very capable Minister not be making a career enhancing move if he suggested now from the Dispatch Box that we should abolish the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and replace them with an office for the Union?

David Mundell: Absolutely not. At this time, when the United Kingdom faces its greatest ever danger from separatists, the Scotland Office is a bulwark against independence.

Brian H Donohoe: Is that what is called cutting the Department to the bone? Will the Minister name all the staff of his Department? I remember telling a previous Secretary of State that it must be the only empire in the whole of Westminster where the Secretary of State is able to name all his staff: can he?

David Mundell: I pay tribute to the staff of the Scotland Office. With a small number of staff, we have pursued the Scotland Bill, a very significant measure, through this House and into the other place. The Scotland Office has a key role to play as we move forward in preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

The Union

Mark Menzies: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Moore: As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland’s economic opportunities are larger, our public finances are more robust, our defence is stronger, our influence on the international stage is greater, the welfare system is more secure and our cultural and family ties are closer. Those are just half a dozen reasons why we are stronger together.

Mark Menzies: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the tough economic crisis facing small European countries, the worst thing for Scotland would be to become a small independent country dependent on the eurozone, rather than being part of the United Kingdom and having the strength that brings?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issues that face Scotland if it chooses to be independent and the fact that such a process cannot take place without some very hard-nosed negotiations with our European partners, who are facing real difficulties all over the continent. We need the SNP to spell out its plans on how it will deal with those issues—then let us get on with the independence referendum.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Secretary of State agree that the social union, the Commonwealth, the monarchy and particularly the current Queen—Queen Elizabeth—will be important whatever constitutional arrangements Scotland has in the future? That, of course, would mirror the situation in independent Canada, New Zealand and Australia, with Scotland being the Queen’s 17th independent realm.

Michael Moore: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for Scotland’s independence, but I wish it were shared with some intention to get on with the debate. The chairman of the independence campaign is sitting beside him. What are they scared of? Let us get on with it.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend has outlined the benefits to Scotland of European Union membership and the uncertainty that would surround those benefits in the event that Scotland were to be independent. Does he agree that it would help to resolve that uncertainty if the Scottish Government published the legal advice they have had on the point, so that it may contribute properly to the debate?

Michael Moore: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. The idea that we would somehow simply get membership of the European Union with complete agreement, without discussion and without needing to worry about the terms of negotiation is quite fanciful. It is a journey into the unknown and we need to have the detail.

William Bain: One of the many benefits associated with the Union is the certainty provided by Scotland’s continuing membership of the European Union. Has the Secretary of State seen the impartial Library research published yesterday, which indicates that Scotland may have to go through an accession process to stay in the EU if it becomes a separate state? That research also shows that if Scotland were accepted as a member state, according to the most recent data, net annual contributions to the EU from Scottish taxpayers would rise to £92 per capita compared with only £57 per capita from the rest of the UK. Would it not be contrary to Scotland’s national and economic interests to separate from the rest of the UK if it meant Scotland ended up out of the EU or paying more to stay in the EU, and only if it adopted the euro?

Michael Moore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, in which he is already demonstrating his forensic attention to detail. I am delighted that he has put his point across, and I completely agree with him about the uncertainty that all this causes.

Energy Prices

John Robertson: What recent discussions he has with Ofgem on energy prices in Scotland.

Michael Moore: I recently discussed this issue with Ofgem and other key stakeholders at the energy summit I held in Bathgate on 20 October. This Government are determined to help people to reduce their energy bills and I welcome Ofgem’s recent proposals to reform the retail energy market.

John Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman’s Government want to put a bonfire under quangos, so how does Ofgem chairman Lord Mogg’s £200,000-a-year salary for a three-day week sit with not going above the Prime Minister’s salary?

Michael Moore: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are talking about energy prices rather than salaries, but I am sure that the talents of the Secretary of State will allow him to remain in order.

Michael Moore: I am delighted to say to the hon. Gentleman that I recognise his long-standing concerns on all these issues—not only salaries but energy prices. Our proposals to simplify matters and to help people to switch and to get greater transparency in their bills, and the all the other reforms being introduced by Ofgem, are crucial. I look forward to Ofgem getting on with that work.

Robert Smith: One of the key groups of customers facing high energy prices this year is those who are not on the gas main and heat their homes with oil, LPG and other fuels. At the moment, sadly, Ofgem does not have a remit for them. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether there is any way that those suppliers can be made to engage with their vulnerable consumers in the same way as mains gas suppliers have to?

Michael Moore: My colleagues in the Department for Energy and Climate Change will meet to discuss this in the next few weeks. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue, and I look forward to picking it up with him at some time in the near future.

Michael Weir: Yesterday the Secretary of State for DECC sent a letter to all MPs promoting the Government’s policy of check, switch and insulate, but how does the Secretary of State suggest that off-grid customers can check or switch when in many areas there is a virtual monopoly on home fuel oil? [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. We need to hear the Secretary of State.

Michael Moore: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), we want to discuss these issues. Representing a big rural area without gas grid access, I recognise that this is an important matter, and I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman too.

Electoral Commission Report

Mike Freer: What assessment his Department has made of the report of Electoral Commission Scotland on the 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

David Mundell: I welcome the Electoral Commission’s finding that the Scottish Parliament election was well administered and voter focused.

Mike Freer: Given that the Scottish Government did not complain about the Electoral Commission being involved in the elections, does my right hon. Friend think it odd that they now want to set up their own independent commission on the referendum?

David Mundell: I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP Government had no complaint about the Electoral Commission’s involvement in the Scottish Parliament elections and the alternative vote referendum but, at great cost to the taxpayer, they intend to set up their own commission to oversee the referendum. No wonder so many people are speculating that that is an attempt to rig the referendum.

Ian Davidson: Will the Minister meet the Electoral Commission in Scotland on 30 November, or will he, like me, be supporting the public sector strike against Tory cuts in pensions?

David Mundell: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, as convenor of the Scottish Affairs Committee, brought the Electoral Commission before his Committee. That will provide valuable evidence in the debate on the role that it should play in any referendum.

Iain Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any recommendation in the report about changing the electorate in Scotland in the same way as the Scottish Government want to gerrymander the electorate for their independence referendum?

David Mundell: I am not aware of any such suggestions in the Electoral Commission report, but my hon. Friend is correct to highlight the issues with the Scottish separatists’ referendum that are causing such uncertainty—the franchise, the question and the timing. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to come to order and listen to Mr Frank Doran.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Frank Doran: What recent discussions he has had on the deployment of carbon capture and storage technology in Scotland.

Michael Moore: My most recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss this issue was on 10 October. Although it was not possible to reach a deal on Longannet, the Government remain firmly committed to carbon capture and storage and I welcome the confirmation given by the Treasury that the £1 billion of funding will be made available for future CCS projects.

Frank Doran: The Government in the 1980s refused to invest in wind power and threw away our world lead in renewables. Are this Government making the same mistake by refusing to invest in the most advanced industrial-scale carbon capture and storage project in the world at Longannet?

Michael Moore: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do agree that we are determined to see Britain take a leading role in this important technology. That is why the £1 billion of investment is still available and why Peterhead and other parts of the UK will be able to bid for it.

Eilidh Whiteford: I hope that the Secretary of State will welcome this morning’s announcement by Scottish and Southern Energy and Shell that they are bringing the project at Peterhead
	one step closer. What assurances can he give that the project will not be shelved, as the last Peterhead project for carbon capture and storage was by the previous Government, and that we will see this investment?

Michael Moore: In a week when a major international bank has talked about the impact that the uncertainty over independence is having on renewables investment in Scotland, we will take no lessons from the SNP about uncertainty. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), it is vital that Peterhead and other places come forward with their bids, and £1 billion is available to support them.

Fisheries

Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on reform of the common fisheries policy.

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister and his officials on a range of issues of significance to the Scottish economy. I have frequent discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, including a meeting last week on the common fisheries policy and other matters.

Anne McIntosh: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Members are being very unfair to the Member asking the question and to the Minister answering it. Let us have a bit of order.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the direction in which the negotiations on fisheries are going is entirely in the interests of the Scottish and UK fisheries in ending discards and allowing for regional fisheries agreements?

David Mundell: I agree with my hon. Friend, just as I agree with Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who stated in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which she chairs, that the UK should speak with one voice in fisheries negotiations.

Katy Clark: What discussions has the Minister had with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about tradeable quotas to ensure that they are not taken advantage of by multinationals who use the UK as a flag of convenience?

David Mundell: I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have understood the hon. Lady’s point. She, like me, will welcome the fact that there will be a Backbench Business Committee debate on fisheries next week.

Unemployment

Fiona O'Donnell: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the level of unemployment in Scotland.

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with John Swinney, the Scottish Minister responsible for employment, about unemployment in Scotland. Scottish Government officials and agencies have been involved in all the employment seminars that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held over the past six months.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the Minister tell the people in my constituency who have lost their jobs since he got his job whether unemployment is a price worth paying for a deficit reduction plan that is choking off growth and raising Government debt?

David Mundell: I tell the hon. Lady to be slightly less predictable and finally to take some responsibility for the situation in which her Government left this country, including the biggest peacetime deficit in our history.

Alan Reid: Unemployment in Kintyre could be reduced if the community bid to take over the former RAF base at Machrihanish goes ahead. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will make a contribution towards making the water supply fit for purpose, so that the community’s bid is viable. Will the Minister please encourage the MOD to do so?

David Mundell: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and take forward his concerns with the MOD.

Anne McGuire: Will the Minister take responsibility for something that his Government have done? This morning, House of Commons figures show that youth unemployment in my constituency has risen by 218.2%. What is he going to tell the young people of Stirling that the Government have done over the past 18 months?

David Mundell: The right hon. Lady knows that youth unemployment rose under the Labour Government too. It is a serious issue, and it should not be the subject of party politicking. We should all work together to resolve youth unemployment.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Julian Huppert: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 November.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. Despite being in the Army only a short time, he had already proved himself to be a dedicated and courageous soldier. He has made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the British people, and we should send our deepest condolences to his family and friends. This week, we will, of course, pause to remember all those who have lost their lives in defence of our country, so that we can enjoy peace and freedom, and we are humbled by their sacrifice.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Julian Huppert: May I add my tribute to the Prime Minister’s about the sad death of Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, especially with Remembrance Sunday so near?
	The Prime Minister is rightly concerned about jobs and growth. Crucial to that is consumer confidence. Does he think that telling 25 million workers that they have no job security and can be fired at will tomorrow will boost or reduce consumer confidence?

David Cameron: Clearly, we have to make it easier for firms to hire people. That is why we have scrapped Labour’s jobs tax, taken 1 million of the lowest-paid people out of tax, established new rules so that someone can go to a tribunal only after working somewhere for two years, and introduced fees for claims in employment tribunals to stop vexatious claims. Added to that, we are investing in the Work programme and apprenticeships—all as a way of helping to give young people jobs.

Edward Miliband: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment? He showed immense courage trying to protect local people, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. With troops serving in conflict overseas, it is even more important that this weekend, on Remembrance Sunday, we honour all those who have served our country and who are serving our country today.
	Will the Prime Minister tell us how many people entered the UK under the Home Secretary’s relaxed border controls?

David Cameron: The figures for the period between August 2010 and August 2011 for the number of people who entered the country are published in the normal way. The figures that I have are these: the number of people arrested was up by 10%, the number of drug seizures was markedly up, and the number of firearms seizures was up by 100%. However, we should be clear about what did, and what did not, happen here. First, the Home Secretary agreed a pilot for a more targeted approach to border control. This was for people within the European economic area, and it allowed better targeting of high-risk people and less for others, notably children. This did not compromise security. It was an operational decision, but one that I fully back, and which I think she was right to take.
	Secondly and importantly, however, decisions were taken to extend that beyond EEA nationals. That was not authorised by the Home Secretary. Indeed, when specific permission was asked for, it was not granted. This did not mean that our borders were left undefended, and passports continued to be checked, but because this was unauthorised action—as it was contrary to what she agreed—it was right that the head of the border force was suspended. I back that action completely.

Edward Miliband: It is just not good enough. The Prime Minister cannot tell us how many people—how many millions of people—were let in under the relaxed
	border controls agreed by the Home Secretary. Is it not totally unacceptable that the Home Secretary chose to relax border controls in July, but, even yesterday, could not tell us which airports and ports that applied to, how many took it up and for how long?

David Cameron: The Home Secretary provided those figures, and the figures are as follows: firearms, 100% increase in seizures; illegal immigrants, 10% increase in arrests; forged documents, 48% increase. But the simple fact that the right hon. Gentleman—and, I think, everyone—has to accept is this. The head of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman, who also did not know that such unauthorised action was taking place, said this, and it is very important for the House to understand it:
	“Brodie Clark admitted to me on November 2 that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”
	That is why Brodie Clark was suspended, and that is why the Home Secretary backed that decision, but it is important to understand that he was suspended by the head of the UK Border Agency. It was a decision quite rightly taken by him—backed by the Home Secretary, backed by me.

Edward Miliband: Isn’t it utterly typical? When things go wrong, it is nothing to do with them—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, let me just emphasise this: there are Members on both sides of the House shouting their heads off. Members of the Youth Parliament last Friday—[ Interruption. ]Order. Members of the Youth Parliament spoke brilliantly and passionately disagreed with each other, but they did not shout at each other.

Edward Miliband: What did the Home Secretary say in the past, when she was in opposition and things went wrong on immigration? She said this:
	“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
	The Prime Minister said yesterday, in his evidence to the Liaison Committee about the relaxation of border controls over the past few months, that
	“clearly this is not acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long.”
	Why did the Home Secretary allow it to happen?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman cannot on the one hand blame me for not taking responsibility and then quote very clearly my words taking responsibility and saying what is not acceptable. We are having a lecture on responsibility from a party that trebled immigration, let an extra 2.2 million people into our country, allowed everyone from eastern Europe to come here with no transitional controls, built up a backlog of half a million asylum claims, and made no apology about it. Even today, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether too many people were let into this country, his answer was a very simple no.

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman has been Prime Minister for 18 months. He cannot keep saying that it is nothing to do with him; it is his responsibility. One month ago he gave a speech on
	border controls called “Reclaiming our Borders”, but while he was boasting about reclaiming our borders, his Home Secretary was busy relaxing our borders. Does the Prime Minister not think that he should at least have known?

David Cameron: The pilot that the Home Secretary introduced meant more arrests, more firearms seized and more forged documents found. That is the truth of it. The fact is that officials went further than Home Office Ministers authorised. That is what is wrong, and that is why someone had to be suspended—and that was the right decision.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what we have done. Let me tell him. We are completing e-Borders, so that by next April every flight from outside the EU will be checked; we are creating the National Crime Agency, with the dedicated border police; in the first six months, we seized more drugs than in the whole of last year; and last year we rejected 400,000 visa applications and turned away 68,000 people without the correct documents. I am determined that we have tough border controls, and finally we have a Home Office and an Immigration Minister who actually want to cut immigration.

Edward Miliband: Anyone listening to the Prime Minister would think that his policy has been a great success. It is a fiasco—a complete fiasco. The one thing that he cannot claim to know nothing about is cuts to the UK border force. Can he now confirm how many UK border staff are going to be cut under his Government?

David Cameron: By the end of this Parliament there will be 18,000 people working for the UK Border Agency—the same number as were working for it in 2006, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Treasury and determining the budgets. He asks about what we have done on immigration in 18 months in office. Let me tell him. We have introduced the first ever limit on work visas from outside the European Union. We have stopped more than 470 colleges from bringing in bogus foreign students. We have cut student visas by 70,000. Anyone who comes here to get married has to speak English. We are ending automatic settlement rights and stopping the nonsense of people misusing the Human Rights Act. In 18 months we have done more to control immigration than he did in 13 years.

Edward Miliband: The truth is, it is a fiasco and the Prime Minister knows it. That is the reality. It is a pattern with this Government: broken promises, gross incompetence, blame everybody else. He is an out-of-touch Prime Minister leading a shambolic Government.

David Cameron: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman just completely lost his way. I think he should spend a little more time listening to the author of “blue Labour”, Lord Glasman, who said:
	“Labour lied…about the extent of immigration”.
	Where is the apology?

Gary Streeter: On Friday, 3 Commando Brigade will be marching through the streets of Plymouth on their homecoming parade after a successful but costly tour of duty in Afghanistan. I know that the Prime Minister will be
	with us in spirit, but will he send a message of support today to those brave and very professional Royal Marines, of whom we are all so very proud?

David Cameron: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. I know that the whole of the south-west—and the whole country—is incredibly proud of the Marines, and we are proud of 3 Commando Brigade, who will be marching through Plymouth. I send my very best wishes for the homecoming parade, and we should also put on record what they have achieved in Task Force Helmand. They carried out 37,000 patrols, found more than 400 improvised explosive devices and trained more than 1,300 Afghan uniformed police patrolmen. They have made a real difference to the safety and security of that country, and to the safety of our country too.

Lindsay Roy: Does the Prime Minister think it right and proper or in any way defensible that the Royal Bank of Scotland, which received a massive bail-out during the crisis, should be paying out more than £500 million in bonuses this year?

David Cameron: No, I do not think it is acceptable. RBS has not yet set its figures for bonus payments. The British Government are a seriously large shareholder in RBS, and we will be making our views known.

Edward Leigh: In joining me in giving our condolences to the relatives of the Red Arrows pilot killed at RAF Scampton yesterday, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the overriding need for safety? Our campaign to save RAF Scampton from closure is based not just on sentiment for the historic home of the Dambusters, but on the overriding need for the safe uncluttered skies above north Lincolnshire that the Red Arrows need to practise safely.

David Cameron: I am sure that the hearts of everyone in this House go out to the family of the pilot who was killed in that terrible accident, which comes on top of a second accident that happened in the Red Arrows. This has obviously been a tragic time for something that the whole country reveres and loves, and I know that the Red Arrows’ home in Lincolnshire is extremely important to them. We must get to the bottom of what happened, and I totally understand why my hon. Friend wants to stand up for the air base in his constituency.

Gordon Banks: The trade unions yesterday published data showing that Clackmannanshire in my constituency has seen the largest growth in youth unemployment in this country. Given that we will not have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on unemployment numbers next week, will he tell me why he is letting young people down in my constituency?

David Cameron: Obviously we face a difficult situation with unemployment, including among young people, right across the country, and we need to do everything we can to help people back into work. That is why there is record investment going into apprenticeships and the Work programme. However, the real need is to grow the private sector, because, frankly, this is a time
	when whoever was in government would have to make reductions in the public sector. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but any Government would have to do that: look across Europe at the reductions that are having to be made. We need to get the private sector growing, which is what this Government are focused on.

Peter Aldous: Developing the considerable potential for jobs in the energy sector is central to economic recovery in my constituency, as is providing local people with the skills to take on those jobs. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government do all they can to fund the completion of the newly opened Pakefield high school in Lowestoft, which will play such an important role in skilling young people in a deprived area?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the skills that that local school will bring. This year Suffolk has an extra £33 million in capital funds. It is obviously for the local authority to decide how to spend that money, but school capital available throughout this spending round and this Parliament amounts to £15.9 billion, so money is there for important school projects.

Gregory Campbell: This weekend the nation will pause to remember, paying tribute to our war dead. At cenotaphs across the nation, we will pay homage to the men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice in conflicts down through the years. Does the Prime Minister agree that where there is a desire to display that tribute in an entirely non-partisan way, whether in shops, schools, churches or on football tops, it should be not only allowed, but positively promoted?

David Cameron: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and sense that the entire House does too. It is a remarkable achievement of the Royal British Legion and the country as a whole that we have reintroduced over past years the sense of the silence taking place at the 11th hour of the 11th day, which is absolutely right. It is particularly appropriate in Northern Ireland, where so many people have served so bravely in our armed forces. Indeed, whenever I visit the Royal Irish Regiment, I am always struck by how many people from both sides of the border have served so bravely in our armed forces.

Andrew Selous: Less family breakdown would reduce the costs loaded on to our economy, so will the Prime Minister encourage health authorities throughout the country to take part in “Care for the Families: Let’s Stick Together” pilots, when health visitors and volunteer parents offer relationship support to new parents in the early years of their family life, which is when half of all break-ups occur?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has a great record in pushing forward that absolutely vital idea. It is a tragic fact that so many couples break up after the arrival of the first child because of all the stresses and strains that can bring. That is dreadful for those couples and dreadful for those children. We spend a huge amount as a country dealing with the problems of social breakdown;
	in my view we should spend more on trying to help to keep families together. Relationship advice and support, as he says, is absolutely vital in that.

Mark Durkan: On Friday the UN Security Council will consider the democratically conveyed Palestinian request for full membership of the UN. Might not the international community do more to advance the prospect of a two-state solution by doing more to create a two-state process? In that context, will he ensure that the UK representative casts a positive vote on Friday, and does not go for the cop-out of abstention?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a full statement to the House on this issue in a few moments, but let me say this: the British Government are fully behind the two-state solution, but I profoundly believe that we will get that not through declarations and processes at the UN, but through the two potential states—Israel and Palestine—sitting down and negotiating. All our efforts should go towards helping to make that happen.

Surviving Winter Appeal

Tessa Munt: If he will make it his policy to endorse the Somerset Community Foundation’s 2011 Surviving Winter appeal.

David Cameron: The winter fuel payment provides valuable help to millions of people with paying their fuel bills. Individuals are of course free to donate their payment to a charity if they wish, but it must be a decision for them.

Tessa Munt: I thank the Prime Minister for that question. I would like him to congratulate Peter Wyman of the Somerset Community Foundation on having the brilliant idea of people donating some or all of their winter fuel allowance to those who need it most. Would the Government consider enabling such donations by including an option in the letter sent out about the allowance to allow an automatic donation to the Surviving Winter appeal?

David Cameron: I shall certainly look at that suggestion, but it is important to keep the promises that we made to Britain’s pensioners about keeping up the winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. I would not want to see any unnecessary pressure put on people to do something that might not be in their own best interests.

Engagements

Christopher Leslie: The operational instruction from the UK Border Agency on 20 July says:
	“We will cease routinely opening the chips within EEA passports…checking under 18-year-olds against the warning index”.
	Did anyone in the Home Office clear that document? Given the conflicting stories between the Home Secretary’s officials and her own version, will the Prime Minister publish all the ministerial instructions to the UKBA?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is trying desperately to make up the ground lost by his party leader, but I am afraid that he has rather lost the House
	in the process. The point is that an inquiry will be carried out by the independent chief inspector of the Border Agency—the very person who found out what was going wrong in terms of operations undertaking that did not have the permission of Ministers, and all these issues will be aired.

Tracey Crouch: On Christmas day 1914, British and German troops put down their weapons and played a football match in no man’s land. The following day, the bloody hostilities resumed. Today, we wear the poppy in remembrance of our war dead. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the outrageous decision by FIFA to refuse the home nations’ request to wear the poppy on their shirts this weekend as a simple mark of respect and remembrance?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks not only for the whole House but for the whole country in being completely baffled—and, frankly, angry—at the decision made by FIFA. If teams want to put the poppy on their shirts, as many teams do in our football league, they should be able to do so at national level, whether it is the English team or the Welsh team. This is an appalling decision, and I hope that FIFA will reconsider it.

Geraint Davies: As poverty is rising, the Prime Minister is removing the requirement for people to register to vote in Britain, thereby removing millions of people’s right to vote. Is he not taking their money with one hand and taking their votes with another? Is it not a grotesque distortion of democracy to force austerity measures on the most vulnerable while removing their voting power?

David Cameron: The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that we are introducing individual voter registration, which is a Labour policy, so he should be welcoming it. I can understand why he does not necessarily support the idea of making all constituencies the same size, because his constituency has only 62,000 people in it, whereas his right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) represents 91,000 people. I think that it is a basic act of fairness to have seats the same size. It was a demand of the Chartists in the 1840s, and I think that it is time we introduced it.

Annette Brooke: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing evidence of the increase in abuse, intimidation and harassment on park home sites across the country? Tackling those problems needs political will, not a large sum of money. Will he address the issues urgently, so that vulnerable park homers get the protection that they need and deserve as soon as possible?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I have had constituency cases myself in which people have been treated very badly by park home owners. There are some extremely good park home owners, who not only obey the rules but demonstrate responsibility and compassion, but there are some who do not. We are committed to providing a better deal for park home residents by improving their rights and increasing protection against bad site owners. I will arrange for her to have a meeting with the Housing Minister so that they can discuss this urgent action.

Hazel Blears: In these difficult economic times, it is even more important for our politics to be in touch with the people we represent. Will the Prime Minister therefore welcome the first people to be successful in getting places on the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, who are with us here today? They are inspiring individuals who would never normally have the chance to work in politics. Will he agree to meet them and listen to their views on the relevance of the issues today, and perhaps on how we are all doing in our politics?

David Cameron: I would certainly join the right hon. Lady in the point she makes. She has made a huge amount of impact on this issue of social mobility, of wanting to help people who have not had good chances in life. I applaud her for that. If there is time in my busy diary, I will certainly do as she says. I think there is an important opportunity for everyone in this House to look at organisations like the Social Mobility Foundation that provide opportunities for interns from inner city schools to come and have the experience of working here in Parliament. I have used this scheme, as have other members of the Cabinet, and I think it is an excellent scheme to give people a really good chance to see what we do in this place—not just on Wednesday at 12 o’clock, but more broadly.

Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend think it right for hon. Members to take instruction from the GMB about how to vote on amendments?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue—[Interruption.] I can hear, and I can sense, a bit of resistance, which is perhaps not surprising when 85% of Labour’s money comes from the trade unions. When we discuss legislation in this House, we should be bringing our judgment, our ideas and our arguments, not just picking up a tired old brief from a trade union.

Cathy Jamieson: In my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun there are over 3,000 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but the latest figures show that there were only 300 job vacancies available. Jobs are being lost in the public sector and the private sector. How high does unemployment have to go before the Prime Minister will accept that his economic policies are simply not working?

David Cameron: Unemployment is too high today, and I want to see it come down from its already high levels. What we have to do to make that happen is to put resources into the apprenticeship scheme and into the Work programme to make sure that we do all the things that help businesses to employ people. That is what this Government are doing. We are cutting corporation tax, introducing enterprise zones and doing everything we can to help businesses. We will do that in the hon. Lady’s constituency and throughout the country.

Jo Johnson: Italian bond yields have jumped this morning by more than a percentage point to an unsustainable 8.1%. Could the Prime Minister please say what eurozone leaders must now do to stop the contagion?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If you do not have credibility about your plans to deal with your debts and deal with your deficits, whether you like the markets or not, they will not lend you any money. That is what we are seeing in countries like Greece and now, tragically, in Italy, where the price of borrowing money is reaching a totally unsustainable level. It is a lesson for all of us to have sustainable plans to get on top of our debt and our deficits. In terms of Europe, the problem of contagion is that as we agree a decisive write-down of Greek debt, people inevitably start asking questions about other countries. As that happens, you need to have in place the biggest possible firewall. That is what the European Financial Stability Facility is all about, and eurozone leaders urgently need to put flesh on the bones and put figures on the size of that firewall, to stop this contagion going any further.

Andrew Gwynne: Last year youth unemployment in Tameside stood at an unacceptable 20%—one in five. Today it stands at 34%, which is shocking. In light of that, does the Prime Minister still believe that the decision to scrap the future jobs fund was the right one?

David Cameron: Let me just make the point that under Labour youth unemployment went up by 40%—and the evidence that we received on coming into government was that the future jobs fund was three or four times more expensive than other job creation schemes. Indeed, in many parts of the country, including in the west midlands, the percentage of future jobs fund jobs that were in the private sector was as low as 2% or 3%. It was right to scrap the future jobs fund and put in its place apprenticeships, the Work programme and work experience that will make a difference to young people.

Alec Shelbrooke: War is a failure of politics. The people who go to war are not politicians; they are brave service people who die in the service of their country. May I urge my right hon. Friend to write to FIFA to point out that the poppy is not a political symbol but a symbol that says that we respect the sacrifice that people have made on behalf of their countries?

David Cameron: I will certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests. I think that it is a question not just of writing to FIFA, but of asking its membership bodies, including the Football Association, to take a strong line. As my hon. Friend says, this is not an issue of left or right, Labour or Conservative. We all wear the poppy with pride, even if we do not approve of the wars in
	which people were fighting. We do it to honour the fact that those people sacrificed their lives for us. It is absolutely vital for FIFA to understand that, and I think that a clear message from the House and the Government can make it think again.

Stuart Bell: Given that Italy is now on what the Prime Minister has described as a “credible fiscal path”, will he help the Group of Twenty’s Finance Ministers to meet and contribute to the creation of a European financial stability pact in a way that will assist the eurozone?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. However, the first responsibility for building the bail-out fund must lie with the eurozone members. As we said in the House on Monday, the problem at the G20 is that the G20, the International Monetary Fund and countries such as Britain cannot be asked to do things that the eurozone members are not themselves prepared to do.
	We do stand ready to boost the IMF, we do want to help countries in distress, and we do not want to see our trading partners collapse. We understand that, even though we do not support membership of the euro, if countries fall out of the euro it could be very painful for our economy. However, it is for the eurozone countries to sort out the problems. It is their currency.

William Cash: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Prime Minister referred to a firewall in relation to the bail-outs. Does he accept that what we really need is structural renegotiation of the treaties, given the impact that this is having on the United Kingdom? If I may use a cricketing analogy of which the Prime Minister will be aware, he would not be sent in with a broken bat. He would be sent in with a new bat, and with a united Conservative team behind him.

David Cameron: There is a long history in my party of cricketing metaphors and Europe ending unhappily, so I will not necessarily follow my hon. Friend down that path. What I will say is that we will defend the national interest. When there was a treaty change in the European Council we got something back for Britain, which was the ability to get out of the EU bail-out fund. If there are future treaty changes—some European countries are pushing for them—we will make sure that we achieve a good deal for Britain and protect our national interests.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that this Friday is 11 November, Armistice day. Although the House will not be sitting on that day, many of us will be on the estate performing our parliamentary duties. I regard it appropriate that, at 11 am, we and staff working for us should join the nation in observing the two minutes’ silence, so that we may remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to heads of House Departments, so that members of staff who wish to observe the two minutes’ silence may do so.

Middle East and North Africa

William Hague: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that the House can listen attentively to the statement from the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary is nodding vigorously in response to my proposition.

William Hague: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The House will welcome an update on events in the middle east, including the middle east peace process and Iran’s nuclear programme.
	Let me begin by updating the House on the situation in Libya. The national transitional council declared Libya’s liberation on 23 October after the fall of Sirte and the death of Colonel Gaddafi, starting the country’s transition to democracy as set out in the council’s constitutional declaration. A new interim Libyan Prime Minister, Mr al-Kib, has been appointed, and we expect other Ministers to be appointed soon. The forming of a new Government is due to be followed within eight months by elections to a new National Congress.
	These are historic achievements. NATO operations came to an end on Monday 31 October, following the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2016 on 27 October. The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, whose contribution has saved many lives and helped to make the transition in Libya possible.
	I visited Libya on 17 October to reopen our embassy and to hold talks with the Libyan authorities. We are providing communications and logistics support for Libya’s new police force and deploying a British policing adviser. We are also supporting attempts to locate missing anti-aircraft weapons and to clear mines in Misrata, and giving advice on destroying stocks of chemical weapons. We are encouraging the Libyan authorities in their efforts to reintegrate former fighters, bring together Libya’s security forces and provide employment opportunities. It is also important that the remaining International Criminal Court indictees, Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi, be brought to justice before a court of law. We urge Libya’s neighbours to arrest and surrender any indictee on their territory.
	We are determined to address legacy issues from the Gaddafi regime, including the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, the Lockerbie bombing and support for IRA terrorism. The Prime Minister discussed that with Prime Minister al-Kib on 5 November, and we welcome the new Libyan authorities’ willingness to work with us to try to close this chapter of tragic events.
	While progress is made in Libya, in Syria the situation is deteriorating. More than 3,500 people have been killed since March according to the UN. On 2 November, the Arab League brokered an agreement with President Assad, which we welcomed. That plan required the Syrian Government to implement an immediate ceasefire and end all violence; to withdraw their military from all Syrian cities and towns; to release all prisoners and detainees; to provide access for Arab League committees and international media; and to begin comprehensive engagement with the opposition. Implementation was to take place within two weeks.
	Apart from token measures, the Syrian Government have failed to implement the plan. Instead, the repression has escalated and at least 60 more people have died. The Arab League is due to meet this weekend to review the situation. We urge it to respond swiftly and decisively with diplomatic pressure to enforce the agreement, with the support of the international community. To us, these developments confirm that President Assad must step aside and allow others to take forward the political transition that the country desperately needs.
	We will work to intensify pressure on Assad and his regime. On 14 October we reinforced EU measures to include sanctions against the Commercial Bank of Syria, the largest in the country. These sanctions, including the embargo on imports of oil from Syria into the EU, are already restricting sources of finance to the regime. We are working with our European partners on a further round of sanctions to be applied soon if the Syrian Government do not take immediate action to end the violence.
	Turning to Iran, today the International Atomic Energy Agency will deliver its report on military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The report lays out clearly and objectively the evidence that the agency has uncovered of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons technology. The board of governors of the IAEA will convene later this month to consider these grave findings. The assertions of recent years by Iran that its nuclear programme is wholly for peaceful purposes are completely discredited by the report. Iran is ramping up its production of uranium enrichment to levels for which it has no plausible civilian use, but which could easily and quickly be converted into weapons-grade material. The uncovering of the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States also shows Iran’s apparent willingness to sponsor terrorism outside its borders.
	Iran needs to change direction. We want a negotiated solution and have extended the hand of reconciliation to Iran time and time again. We are prepared to have further talks, but only if Iran is prepared to engage in serious negotiations about its nuclear programme without pre-conditions. If not, we must continue to increase the pressure, and we are considering with our partners a range of additional measures to that effect. Iran’s actions not only run counter to the positive change that we are seeing elsewhere in the region; they may threaten to undermine it, bringing about a nuclear arms race in the middle east or the risk of conflict.
	The events in the Arab spring and mounting concern over Iran’s nuclear programme do not detract from the urgent need to make progress on the middle east peace process. I repeat our calls for negotiations on a two-state solution without delay and without preconditions, based on the timetable set out in the Quartet statement of 23 September. In our view, the parameters for a Palestinian state are those affirmed by the European Union as a whole: borders based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps; a just, fair and realistic solution for refugees; and agreement on Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.
	Israel’s announcement last week that it would accelerate the construction of 2,000 settlement housing units was wrong and deeply counter-productive. That was the eighth announcement of settlement expansion in six months. We also condemn the decision to withhold tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, which was provocative
	and against Israel’s own interests, as it has direct implications for the Palestinian Authority’s ability to maintain effective security in the west bank. We call on Israel to revoke both those decisions. We are also concerned about the situation in Gaza and the constant risk of an escalation in violence. We believe the Israeli restrictions harm ordinary Palestinians, inhibit economic development, and strengthen rather than weaken Hamas. It will be both right and directly in Israel’s interest if it permits increased imports of building materials for UN projects and for the private sector in Gaza; allows legitimate exports to traditional markets in the west bank and Israel; and reduces restrictions on civilian movement between Gaza and the west bank.
	On Friday, the admissions committee of the Security Council will conclude its consideration of the Palestinian application and produce a report summarising Council members’ views on whether Palestine meets the criteria for membership under the United Nations charter. As that could now soon be followed by a vote in the UN Security Council, it is appropriate to inform the House of the Government’s intentions.
	The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood, as far as the reality of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories allows, but its ability to function effectively as a state would be impeded by that situation. A negotiated end to the occupation is the best way to allow Palestinian aspirations to be met in reality and on the ground. We will not vote against the application because of the progress the Palestinian leadership have made towards meeting the criteria, but nor can we vote for it while our primary objective remains a return to negotiations through the Quartet process and the success of those negotiations.
	For those reasons, in common with France and in consultation with our European partners, the United Kingdom will abstain on any vote on full Palestinian membership of the UN. We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace. The United Kingdom will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting the Palestinians to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. If their application to the UN Security Council fails, the Palestinian leadership have indicated that they may take the issue to a vote at the UN General Assembly, where different voting procedures and different considerations apply. We and the other countries of the European Union will continue to emphasise that any proposition put to the General Assembly must make a return to negotiations more likely.
	For Israel, the only means of averting unilateral applications to the UN is a return to negotiations. A demonstration of political will and leadership is needed from both sides to break the current impasse. This includes the Israeli Government being prepared to make a more decisive offer than any they have been willing to make in the past.
	The middle east peace process cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the region. In each country there is a huge opportunity for peaceful change, the advancement of human rights and economic development. The decisions they take now will affect their future security and prosperity, and we urge all of them to take the path of reform.
	That was my message on my visit to north Africa last month, when I also travelled to Morocco and Algeria, and to Mauritania, making the first visit by any British Minister to that country. I welcome the fact that during my visit the Government of Mauritania announced that they will reopen an embassy in London. In all these countries I discussed political reform and declared our willingness to support projects through our Arab partnership initiative. That is already providing £6.6 million this year to projects that promote freedom of speech and political participation, support the rule of law, tackle corruption and help small business and entrepreneurs. Across the region we are working with the BBC and the British Council to develop new programmes to strengthen public debate, drawing on our country’s long tradition and expertise in these areas.
	Tunisia has set an example of what can be achieved peacefully. Its elections on 23 October were the first free elections of the Arab spring and the first in that country’s history. This is a remarkable achievement. We look to those who have been elected to the constituent assembly to work together in forming a Government.
	In Egypt, we welcome the decision of the high election commission to allow international NGOs to monitor its parliamentary elections on 28 November. On his visit to Egypt last month, the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need for a clear road map to democracy, and announced UK Arab partnership support to assist the democratic process and economic reform.
	In Bahrain, we await the report of the independent commission of inquiry into the unrest in February and March, which has been deferred until 23 November. This report is a major opportunity and important test for the Bahraini Government to show they take their human rights obligations seriously and will adhere to international standards. We stand ready to help them implement recommendations from the report. In the meantime, we continue to encourage the authorities to address allegations of human rights abuses that are reportedly still occurring and remain of great concern.
	In Yemen, finally, the political impasse is deepening insecurity and poverty. On 21 October, we helped to secure Security Council resolution 2014, which was adopted unanimously and signals clearly to President Saleh that the only way to meet the aspirations of the Yemeni people is to begin a transition on the basis of the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative. We will continue to work with others to support a peaceful and orderly transition in Yemen.
	Each country in the region has to find its own way, and we will work with Governments who strive to bring about greater political and economic freedom in their countries. The Government will work with international partners to maintain peace and security, promote democratic development and uphold the interests of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although the fact that it has been made today, reducing Opposition time, is a matter of regret.
	This is the first statement we have had on foreign and Commonwealth affairs since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector ended, after seven months of operations at sea and in the air. I am sure the whole House wants to
	pay tribute to the armed forces of all nations involved, and in particular to commend the professionalism of the British service personnel who have been involved in protecting the Libyan civilian population.
	While we are dealing with matters related to armed conflicts in north Africa and elsewhere, could the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether reports today are true that the British Government intend to support efforts to change the position agreed in the 2008 convention on cluster munitions and permit the use of certain cluster munitions bombs produced after 1980? He will, I hope, take this opportunity of his response to agree with me that the achievement of the previous Government, taking a lead in reaching international agreement to prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions, was significant and should not now be reneged upon. I also welcome the steps, set out by the Foreign Secretary, that are being taken by the Government in Libya—and indeed Tunisia and Egypt—to translate popular uprising into stable democratic government.
	In his last statement, the Foreign Secretary promised
	“to increase the pressure on the regime”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 496.]
	in Syria. Last Wednesday, he issued a statement saying that he commends
	“the Arab League’s efforts in pursuing this initiative to stop the violence in Syria”.
	Of course the diplomatic involvement of Syria’s neighbours in ending the violence would be welcome, but in his statement today he acknowledged that the situation in Syria has in fact deteriorated, with the UN stating that the death toll now exceeds 3,500. Sixty people have been reported killed since the Arab League began its involvement, many in the city of Homs. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore give his assessment of the realistic prospects for the Arab League’s process, given this continuing pattern of violence? Can he also set out more specifically in his response what steps the British Government are urging on the Arab League when it meets this weekend?
	Let me turn to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, which we are given to understand indicates that Iran has carried out tests
	“relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.
	The Foreign Secretary should be assured that he therefore has our full support in making clear to the Iranians their obligations under international law, our shared opposition to Iran developing a nuclear weapon—a step that would not only threaten Israel and Iran’s immediate neighbours but the security of the whole region—and the need for Iran, as he put it, to change direction.
	In the last statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary said,
	“We are working on further sanctions”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 502.]
	on Iran. Given that the case for further diplomatic measures will be strengthened by this latest IAEA report, can he now tell the House what progress has been made in developing those further sanctions? Can he also give his assessment of the implications of this news for proliferation across the region, given that none of us wants to see a nuclear arms race in such a volatile part of the world? Finally, can he give his assessment of
	what prospects there are for further action at the United Nations level, given the stated positions of both China and Russia?
	I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has given a more substantive update on the situation in Bahrain in today’s statement than was given in his previous statement. In our last exchange on the issue, the Foreign Secretary accepted that
	“national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.”
	Given his statement today that human rights abuses are still being reported, can the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of whether the prospects for national dialogue have improved?
	In his last statement the Foreign Secretary also said:
	“We attach great importance to the publication”
	of the report of the independent commission of inquiry into human rights abuses. At that time he said he expected the report on 30 October, but that has now been pushed back to 23 November. Can he explain why? Will he commit today to setting out the British Government’s reaction in a written or oral statement to the House when that report is finally published?
	Let me turn to the issue of Israel and Palestine. The need for progress on this conflict has, if anything, become more urgent in light of the recent changes in the region, which have only increased the Palestinians’ desire for statehood and have shaken some of the core assumptions that have underpinned Israel’s security in past decades. What is the Foreign Office’s best assessment of the likely impact of the announcement by the Israeli Government of 2,000 more settlement units and threats to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, which the Foreign Secretary condemned, on the Quartet’s attempts to facilitate a return to talks? Will he also join me in condemning the latest rocket attacks on the people of Israel?
	The House is aware that, as the Opposition, we set out our position on the issue of Palestinian recognition on 20 September, and that in a letter to the Foreign Secretary on that date I said that the case made by the Palestinians for recognition at the United Nations as a state was strong. I said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of continuing steps to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution, but I also said at the time that there remains a heavy onus on the British Government and other members of the international community to work to ensure that any change in the level of Palestinian recognition is followed by meaningful negotiations between the parties.
	The Foreign Secretary rightly stated that the goal of all diplomatic efforts should be a two-state solution brought about by negotiations. On 13 October, he told the House:
	“Our words are all directed towards trying to bring about the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. How we act in the Security Council or on any motion that may come before the UN General Assembly will be determined by how we can bring about a resumption of negotiations.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 497-502.]
	Yet today the Foreign Secretary has been unable to explain his decision in reference to negotiations that have resumed. That is because no meaningful negotiations
	are taking place. After his statement today, many Members in all parts of the House will still be struggling to see how a decision to abstain is likely to help bring about resumed negotiations.
	Given the absence of any meaningful negotiations between the parties at present, a point which I am sure the Foreign Secretary will not dispute, can he tell the House how his position of having no position is likely to advance the peace process? This decision announced by the Government today represents a further acceptance of and accommodation to a wider pattern of failure—failure to achieve meaningful negotiations, failure to meet the aspirations of the Palestinians and, indeed, the Israeli people, and continued failure by the international community to find a way through the present impasse.
	Given the Government’s decision announced today, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likely consequences of the Palestinians’ bid for statehood being rejected in the Security Council? How will the Government cast their vote when the issue comes before the United Nations General Assembly? The House deserves a clear answer on this question. I hope in his response the Foreign Secretary will be able to offer a clearer sense of what he now regards as the realistic path forward to a negotiated two-state solution, which I sense the whole House is united in continuing to support.

William Hague: I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked about a report on a different subject, cluster munitions, but I will deal with it quickly. There is an Adjournment debate about this tomorrow, I think, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will deal with and set out the position in more detail. We certainly do not want to weaken what has been agreed in the past, so it is important not to believe everything written in newspapers on this subject, as on so many subjects.
	On the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about Syria, yes, I think it is absolutely right for us to commend the efforts of the Arab League, without being able to have a huge amount of optimism about whether they will be successful. It is very good that the Arab League is engaged with the issue in a united way, and that pressure from within the region among the Arab states is being applied to the Assad regime. As in so many of these situations, that is far more likely to succeed than any pressure from western nations.
	It is right to commend that pressure, but as I indicated in describing the events of the past week, matters have not improved since the putative deal with the Arab League was done, so it is important now for the Arab League to reinforce the pressure that it is applying to the Assad regime. There is a range of measures that the Arab League can take, from suspending Syria from the Arab League to much more concerted diplomatic pressure. It would be quite a major step for the Arab League to go beyond that, given its customary practices, but it is for the Arab League to consider. We will not try to lay down what it should do. We will continue to intensify our own pressure. We have already agreed in the EU sanctions on 56 individuals and 19 entities—importantly, as I say, on the Commercial Bank of Syria as well. That pressure will continue to increase on what is a completely deplorable and unacceptable situation in Syria.
	On Iran, I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for much of what I said about Iran. He asked what the report meant for proliferation in the region. It is bad news about proliferation in the region. The principal problem with Iran’s nuclear programme is that it threatens to drive a coach and horses through the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. It makes it much more likely that other states in the region will develop their own nuclear weapons programmes. Then the world’s most unstable region will be in possession of the world’s most destructive weapons. We have to take this situation with the greatest seriousness. Further action at the United Nations is difficult, given the positions of Russia and China, but I think it will be important for all the Security Council members to study the IAEA report and the forthcoming outcome of the board of governors meeting, and there will be a strong case for further discussions at the United Nations.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what further pressure we are considering. We have already introduced unprecedented UN and European Union sanctions on Iran. We are working to ensure their robust implementation to close loopholes and to discourage trade with Iran. We are in discussions about increasing this pressure, and we are also considering further unilateral measures, should Iran fail to comply with its responsibilities. Although I cannot go into precise detail now on the sanctions that we are considering, we are looking at additional measures against the Iranian financial sector and the oil and gas sector, and the designation of further entities and individuals involved with its nuclear programme.
	On Bahrain, an assessment of whether the national dialogue will lead to success is, again, difficult to give. Some honest efforts have been made to reinforce and carry out that dialogue, but they have certainly not yet produced general agreement in Bahrain on the way forward. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain why the report of the commission of inquiry had been delayed. That is a matter for the Bahraini Government rather than for me to explain, but I hope it signals—[Interruption.] Well, one can take it as good news or bad news. I hope it signals that this is going to be a serious report when it is published on 23 November. Certainly, the composition of the inquiry suggests that its members will want to produce a very serious report. That is why we should attach great importance to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, when the report is published, we would give the Government’s reaction in a statement of whatever kind, including a written statement. We will certainly do that.
	On the middle east peace process, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether actions are helping, including the settlement announcements. Clearly, they are not helping; nor are the rocket attacks on Israel, which he rightly pointed to. He pointed out that his position—and it is our position as well—is that any change in the status of Palestine at the United Nations must be accompanied by or followed by a return to meaningful negotiations. I think that there is common ground on that across the House, but it is how to act on that basis that gives rise to differences on how we should vote at the UN Security Council.
	We consider there to be no substitute for negotiations under the Quartet process, which we obviously want to
	get going. We believe that it is vital for Israel and the Palestinians to embrace the opportunity to take the Quartet process forward, but we also believe that voting for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations at this moment would reduce the incentives for the Palestinians and the willingness of Israelis to find a negotiated solution. I fully respect a different point of view, but that is our judgment on the matter and that of most, if not all, European Governments in and outside the European Union.
	A further factor in our decision is the fact that there has been a serious European effort to bring about a resumption of negotiations by supporting the Quartet. That effort will continue. I do not expect any of our European partners to vote at the Security Council for Palestinian membership. A serious divergence in our voting behaviour at the Security Council at this point would disrupt and complicate European efforts to revive and support negotiations.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to accommodate a reasonable number of them within the very heavy time pressures we face, extreme brevity from Back and Front Benches alike is vital. The way can be led by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Richard Ottaway.

Richard Ottaway: The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the IAEA will be publishing a critical report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Does he agree that we must ensure that the choice does not come down to a military strike against Iran on the one hand, or a nuclear Iran on the other? Even though the Russians do not want to get involved, will he mobilise the international community to bring back the toughest sanctions possible before we are caught between a rock and a hard place?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the urgency of the situation. I hope no one in the world wants to be confronted with the choice he refers to. That is why our dual-track approach is so important; we are prepared to negotiate with Iran through the E3 plus 3, but at the same time we can increase the peaceful and legitimate pressure. It is a peaceful pressure, but it is an increasingly strong economic pressure through the sanctions we are applying. That is designed very much to avert the terrible choice to which he refers.

Ben Bradshaw: I commend the Foreign Secretary for making his announcement on Palestinian statehood to the House first and wish that more Cabinet Ministers would do the same. Is it not clear from what he said about the expansion of illegal settlements, the fact that President Obama, as we have heard, has to deal with Mr Netanyahu every day and the fact that still nothing is happening that an abstention at the United Nations would simply be an abdication of responsibility and achieve nothing?

William Hague: As I said, I think that will be the position of many of our partners and many members of the Security Council, based on our best judgment of what
	is likely to bring about a return to negotiations. The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly said that such meaningful negotiations are not taking place at the moment, but the best chance for a viable, durable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel is for such negotiations to be resumed and to succeed. It is certainly our judgment at the moment that a positive vote at the UN Security Council would not help to bring about a return to negotiations. I entirely respect a legitimate alternative view, but that is our judgment and that of the French Government and many of our colleagues.

Menzies Campbell: I fully support everything my right hon. Friend said about Syria, Libya, Iran and Bahrain, but I hope that he will forgive me for registering my profound disappointment that the United Kingdom will abstain in Friday’s vote in support of Palestinian membership of the United Nations. Does he understand that many on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, believe that such a decision is wrong in principle, is ultimately against British interests and will reduce our influence in the region?

William Hague: Clearly I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend on that point. British interests are in a negotiated settlement; we have no higher interest than that in the middle east peace process. We want to see successful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians leading to a two-state solution. We have to act in a way that is consistent with that and supports it. There are differences of opinion on how best to do that, but our judgment is that it can best be done by acting in this way. It is also the general judgment of our European partners. He is a strong enthusiast of Britain acting with our European partners, but we would be going in the opposite direction if we were to vote differently. I am often asked to ensure that we work closely with our European partners, but when such a situation arises people want me to go in a different direction.

Jack Straw: I endorse entirely the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Will the Foreign Secretary please think again about this? His argument seems entirely tactical, yet there is absolutely no evidence that holding back from a decision to vote for this, which I think he would otherwise support, will encourage Israel to come to the table. Surely the whole weight of the argument is that Israel will come to the table only if the international community is firm with it.

William Hague: I did not notice under the previous Government a dramatic recognition of Palestine or support for its membership of the United Nations—[ Interruption. ] It seems the right hon. Gentleman is still learning as he goes along. He is right that the judgment is largely tactical. Our tactical judgment is that this is the best way to proceed at this moment in the peace process when we are faced with this particular situation. We strongly support the successful creation of a viable Palestinian state. As I pointed out in my statement, under successive Governments the UK has been one of the biggest supporters of that in so many ways, including financially, and the judgment takes nothing away from that, but we believe that we have to maximise the
	incentives for Palestinians to re-enter negotiations without setting many preconditions and the willingness of Israelis to find a negotiated solution, however frustrated many of us may be with them, and we believe that that is best served by voting in the way I have described.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the EU have all assessed the performance of the Palestinian Authority and reported that they are ready for statehood and that, therefore, the consequences of an abstention at the Security Council on 11 November will be severe? Our partners in the middle east look on amazed while we support the right to self-determination in every other country in the region but deny the Palestinians the same right. I strongly urge him to order a reconsideration of the matter and exercise a positive vote at the Security Council.

William Hague: As my right hon. Friend well appreciates, Palestinians are in a different situation. We strongly support their right to a state and a two-state solution in the middle east, but all concerned must concede that such a state can come into meaningful existence only as a result of successful negotiations with Israel. That is where we must direct our efforts. It is not right at this time to vote for a resolution that is not linked to negotiations. That would give the impression that there is a better way of proceeding than returning to negotiations. At this moment there is no better way.

Louise Ellman: I support the Foreign Secretary’s view that only direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will solve the conflict. Does he consider that in the current situation the Palestinians are refusing to go back to the negotiating table because they regard the unilateral declaration as an alternative to negotiations in which they would have to recognise Israel?

William Hague: The hon. Lady’s point is related to the one I am making, which is that we should not encourage the idea that at this moment there is a substitute for negotiations that will bring about a Palestinian state, because realistically there is not. That is why we have taken this position. I think the Palestinians should be ready to re-enter negotiations without setting additional preconditions, but I also think that Israel has to enter negotiations with a readiness to make a much more decisive and—if I may describe it like this—generous offer to the Palestinians than it has been prepared to make for many years. Both things are necessary to bring about a successful negotiation.

Nicholas Boles: Is it not the case that the UN process is a distraction from the biggest obstacle to what we all want to see, which is an independent Palestine living alongside a secure state of Israel? That biggest obstacle is the unchecked nuclear ambition of Iran. It is simply inconceivable that the Israeli people will accept another state becoming a base for Iranian proxies in the way that south Lebanon and Syria have been until we sort out the problem of Iran.

William Hague: It is certainly true that the behaviour of Iran makes peace in the middle east a much more difficult goal to attain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I would say—and I do
	say—to Israeli leaders that the conduct of Iran makes it all the more important for them to settle their differences with the Palestinians and seek to arrive at a two-state solution. That is a very important aspect of the argument as well.

Bob Ainsworth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is little chance of a united international, and therefore effective and peaceful, response to the Iranian nuclear weaponisation programme unless other regional players take a lead in those international forums? Is there any chance—has he seen any sign—of their preparedness to do so?

William Hague: There is a lot in what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is very important that strong international concern is expressed beyond western nations and United Nations Security Council members. He will know that there is immense anxiety in the Arab world about, for instance, the behaviour and intentions of Iran. We do look to those countries to take a stronger public position in the coming months than the positions they have been prepared to take in recent years.

Robert Halfon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as reported in The Wall Street Journal,Prime Minister Netanyahu has in the past couple of days announced a dismantling of illegal settlements? That could mean more settlers being removed than since the evacuation of Gaza, which led to increased terrorism. Does he agree that it is difficult to support a Palestinian state when part of it is still controlled by terrorists funded by Iran?

William Hague: I am aware of announcements made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nevertheless, I say to my hon. Friend that the overall effect of Israeli settlement announcements is very negative, is the wrong judgment and does not help the peace process. We should be absolutely clear about that. I readily agree with him on his second point. Clearly, the situation in Gaza—the continued intransigence of Hamas—certainly does not help the peace process or help to persuade Israelis that a partner for peace is available to them.

Richard Burden: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Palestine’s bid for membership of the United Nations is a lawful one and that it asks no more than the recognition that Israel has demanded as non-negotiable for itself and which was granted by the United Nations 63 years ago? When lawful acts like this and the recent UNESCO decision to admit Palestine to membership are met with reprisals through accelerated settlement building, financial boycotts and attempts in the Israeli Parliament and on the streets of Jerusalem to gag Jewish Israeli groups that dare to speak out for peace and human rights, how is it credible for the UK to sit on its hands and abstain? The time has come to make up our minds.

William Hague: There are two points to respond to. It is certainly entirely wrong to respond to votes such as the one that took place in UNESCO with reprisals of any kind—with announcements of new settlement construction and the withholding of tax revenues. That aggravates and escalates a difficult situation and does not help Israel any more than it helps Palestinians.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we are sitting on our hands. The important point is that, across all the European nations involved in these matters, we are absolutely not sitting on our hands. We are trying to get negotiations going again through the Quartet, the work of Baroness Ashton—the EU High Representative—and all the representations that the United Kingdom, France and Germany make. We are all highly active in that regard. However, at this moment in the very difficult fortunes of the peace process, it is consistent with that approach for us to act in the way I have described.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend re-evaluate the travel ban in parts of Kenya, particularly in Malindi, which is an important tourist resort where thousands of African workers have no work and are likely to be—or could be—recruited by terrorists? Many local people believe it is now safe.

Mr Speaker: My geography may be at fault, but I do not think it is. The Foreign Secretary is a wise man and he will judiciously and briefly deal with the matter.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is stretching north Africa down in a southern and eastward direction. He has written to me on the subject, so I will be responding to him in any case.

Mr Speaker: Marvellous.

Gerald Kaufman: As it is clearly a waste of time asking the right hon. Gentleman to reverse his deplorable decision on Palestinian membership of the United Nations, may I ask him to endorse the French President’s character reference of the Israeli Prime Minister?

William Hague: It would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom for the Foreign Secretary, whoever that may be, to endorse any such remarks. We do not get into endorsing leaked conversations.

Duncan Hames: The Foreign Secretary is more patient than I am in waiting for the Israeli Government to return to meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian authority. When will his patience, like mine, have run out?

William Hague: Well, it will not last for ever. I do not think the Israeli Government regard me—or the position of the United Kingdom—as patient on this subject because we have spoken to them extremely frankly about what they need to do. Nevertheless, however frustrated we are, we all have to recognise that the resumption of negotiations is the only way to bring about the Palestinian state that we seek. We have to act in a way that is in accordance with that, which is why we have taken the decision we have.

David Winnick: The Iranian regime is dreadful. Its tyrannies are is notorious and we all condemn it—at least I hope we all do. Does the Foreign Secretary accept, however, that any military attack on that regime would be counter-productive and have devastating consequences in the region? Will he give a commitment now that under no circumstances will this country be involved directly or indirectly in any such attack?

William Hague: It is always right to warn against all the unknowable consequences in any situation of military action but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our concentration is on efforts to negotiate with Iran and apply peaceful pressure to it. We are not calling for or advocating military action, but we have also always made it clear under successive Governments—this remains our position—that no option has been taken off the table.

Stephen Phillips: Two matters are now clear beyond peradventure in relation to Iran. First, that Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons; secondly, that the existing sanctions regime has not worked at all in seeking to deter it from that course. Russia and China stand in the way of the further sanctions that my right hon. Friend has indicated it would be the Government’s intention to seek, but we have friends in the middle east who can exercise their own pressure on both Russia and China. Will he give an undertaking that that is precisely what the Government will seek to do with those friends in the middle east?

William Hague: Yes. As I emphasised to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Secretary of State for Defence, it is very important that the pressure does not just come from western nations. It is very important that there is increased pressure and attention on the matter throughout the middle east, and we will certainly be seeking to encourage that.

Nigel Dodds: May I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about addressing legacy issues arising from the Gaddafi regime, particularly his explicit reference to IRA terrorism? I look forward to continuing to work with him and his team in the Foreign Office on that issue. On Israel, has he any evidence to suggest that recognition of a Palestinian state would encourage Hamas and those like them, including Iran, to stop their support for the annihilation of Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people?

William Hague: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about the legacy issues. Of course, we will continue to work with him and others on these subjects. We have no evidence that what he describes would be the result. That underlines, of course, the importance of a negotiated solution. Passing motions in the United Nations will not resolve the issue, but a successful negotiation between Israel and Palestine would do so.

Andrew Percy: The Foreign Secretary’s statement seemed to focus very much on the actions of Israel rather than on the actions of the Palestinian Authority, which continues to threaten the state of Israel and not to do enough about terrorist attacks on Israel. However, may I urge him to look again at whether we abstain? Surely we should be voting against this unilateral and provocative act that will do nothing to bring anybody to the negotiating table.

William Hague: We will not vote against it, for the reasons I gave in my statement. I disagree with my hon. Friend a little on this. In recent years, under President Abbas, the Palestinian Authority has done a very good job of building up many of the attributes of statehood. In
	particular, the work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been excellent in this regard. We must not lose sight of that. On the other hand, of course, there is Gaza and the behaviour of Hamas; the Palestinian Authority is not in control of that situation, so I can meet my hon. Friend halfway on that. The Palestinians have done a good job of building up many of the attributes of a state, and that is why we could not countenance voting against this resolution.

Joan Ruddock: But surely the Foreign Secretary must understand that an abstention in these circumstances is equivalent to a no vote. Does he understand the despair that this will cause, and does he not accept that this will encourage Hamas and undermine President Abbas, who, as he said, has done so much to try to forward the peace process?

William Hague: No, I do not agree with that. President Abbas has always understood that such an application would not succeed in the United Nations Security Council. After all, it is the position of the United States that it would, if necessary, veto such a resolution. There is no Palestinian expectation that this application would succeed in the Security Council. What is important is what comes after this discussion. Of course, we want to see the resumption of negotiations in the Quartet. If that does not work, I think that the Palestinians will return relatively quickly to the United Nations General Assembly, where, as I said, different considerations will apply because the terms of any resolution there have yet to be framed. We will do our utmost to ensure that any such resolution helps the return to negotiations.

Matthew Offord: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the conflict is a political one that can be resolved only at the negotiating table, and that the talks should resume as soon as possible without any preconditions? As such, may I urge him, as have other Government Members, to reconsider and vote no against any application?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right that it is a political problem that requires a political solution. There is no legal solution that can be imposed in this respect; a successful political process is required. I agree with him about that. However, for the reasons I gave earlier about the very good work that has taken place in the Palestinian Authority in moving itself towards statehood, we would be unable to vote against its application for membership of the United Nations.

Ian Austin: Many people listening to the statement will be very surprised that the Foreign Secretary devoted so much more time to criticising Israel than to criticising Iran’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, which threaten the stability of the entire region and could trigger a regional arms race and threaten Israel’s very existence. In addition, he did not have a single word to say about terrorist attacks on Israel sponsored by Iran. What conversations has he had with his international counterparts about an increased sanctions regime and any other measures designed to bring Iran to its senses?

William Hague: I have set all that out already, so I do not want to repeat myself. I covered a very wide range of subjects in the statement. I do not think our concern
	about each subject should be measured by the number of words on it. The middle east peace process is a particularly complex matter that therefore requires a good, detailed explanation. I think that what I have said about Iran is very clear, and I set out in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary how we are proceeding on additional measures.

Robin Walker: The Foreign Secretary was right to say that Tunisia has set an example of what can be achieved peacefully, and its first free elections are a remarkable achievement. He will recall that the events that triggered the downfall of the undemocratic Government in Tunisia were caused primarily by economic hardship. What can the UK and its allies do to ensure that there is an economic recovery in north Africa to underpin the positive political progress we have seen?

William Hague: There is an enormous opportunity to create much stronger economic and trading links between the whole of Europe and the countries of north Africa. It is part of the excitement and the vision that is now possible in the Arab spring that we can envisage Tunisia, Libya and, we hope, Egypt opening up economically, provided that we open up to them. It is now vital that we implement the European neighbourhood policy agreed in May, including better market access into Europe for products, including agricultural products, from north Africa to begin that process of much stronger links between our countries.

Ann Clwyd: One hundred and seven hon. Members from across this House have signed a motion in support of Palestinian statehood at the UN. Surely at a time when the negotiations have virtually stalled, one way of kick-starting them is to get a positive vote for the Palestinians at the UN. If, as it is said, they are one vote short of achieving that, it would be an absolute disgrace for this country to sit on the fence.

William Hague: The difference of judgment is on whether voting for the application in the current situation at the UN Security Council would help a return to negotiations. Our view, and the view of the Government of France and many other Governments, is that it would not do so—that such a vote, if we all voted in that way, would reduce the incentives for Palestinians, and the willingness of Israelis, to engage successfully in negotiations. We differ only on that point. I entirely respect the legitimate view that we should vote in favour, for all the reasons the right hon. Lady and others have put, but our overall judgment is that a return to negotiations is best served by the course I have set out.

Daniel Kawczynski: This year, although on separate occasions, my right hon. Friend and I were the first British MPs to visit Mauritania since its independence in 1960, when the Father of the House visited. This shows the previous Government’s lack of engagement with Francophone north Africa. I very much hope that as a result of my right hon. Friend’s visit we will give due consideration to establishing an embassy in Nouakchott and issuing a speedy invite for the President of Mauritania to come and meet the Prime Minister.

William Hague: My hon. Friend blazed a trail by being the first British MP to go to Mauritania in a very long time. I can assure him that people there are still talking about his visit, and they will be for a long time to come. I strongly welcome the work that he has undertaken. We now have one diplomat based in Nouakchott, and of course we may want to expand that presence in future. I do not want to go any further than that at the moment.

Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to our need to have dialogue with the Arab League, and possibly Turkey, about Iran and Syria. Does he accept that while we do not buy friendship with those we work with, nevertheless the decision announced today about the vote on Palestine will not be well understood by our friends in the Arab world?

William Hague: I think the situation in the Security Council is quite well understood in the Arab world. As I pointed out to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, there has been no serious expectation that a bid to the Security Council could be successful; given the position of the United States, it is not possible for it to be successful. What matters, therefore, is what happens next. It is very well understood in the Arab world that we have been increasing the pressure on Israel and increasing our condemnation of actions such as the settlement activity undertaken by Israel, and that we are doing our utmost to restart negotiations.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for enhanced but peaceful pressure on Iran. Will he confirm that our preferred approach for more aggressive intervention in other states by anyone is that there should be a strong legal and humanitarian justification, regional support and, if possible, explicit sanction by the United Nations?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quoting me back at myself in what I have said about the strengths of our intervention in Libya. I have said that any necessary intervention is greatly strengthened by such things and that they are, and remain, criteria for us. Clearly, we are not advocating military action; we are advocating an increase in peaceful, legitimate pressure, as well as the continued offer of negotiations.

Hywel Williams: Will the Foreign Secretary call on the Turkish Government to end their criminalisation of legitimate democratic Kurdish organisations and, in particular, will he condemn the arrest of the Assembly Member, Büsra Ersanli, the veteran writer and publisher, Ragip Zarakolu, and many others on clearly politically inspired charges?

William Hague: We do raise human rights cases with Turkey and I will certainly consider the cases that the hon. Gentleman has described. We will have many detailed discussions with Turkey because of the state visit of the President of Turkey in two weeks’ time. I will look at those cases ahead of that visit.

Philip Hollobone: Are sanctions against Iran likely to work unless China and Russia both get involved?

William Hague: Russia and China are involved in the current framework of United Nations sanctions, which is approved by the UN Security Council, including by Russia and China. It is important that we do not have the impression that those countries are not concerned about this subject or that they have not been helpful on many occasions. It is true that we would go further, however. In the light of the IAEA report we will certainly want to focus minds on this subject, including in Moscow and Beijing, so there will be further discussions with both countries.

Denis MacShane: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that all women doctors should be released from Bahraini prisons, that all our parliamentary colleagues in Bahrain should be able to resume their functions, and that all Ministers who sanctioned torture a few months ago should be placed on trial? We do not need to wait for a whitewash report before he can say yes on all three points.

William Hague: We want human rights to be fully respected in Bahrain. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to say in advance of the report that it is a whitewash. We will be able to see whether it is or not and to form our own judgment. It is wrong of him to form his judgment before its publication. It is best to respond to such things after their publication. In the meantime, we will of course continue to advocate to the Bahraini Government that they should have the maximum respect for the human rights of their citizens, just as we would expect in this country.

Jo Swinson: Iran’s continued nuclear weapons programme and the rising tensions in Israel constitute a terrifying tinderbox in the middle east. The military rhetoric from some quarters in the United States is very worrying. How is the Foreign Secretary using our improving bilateral relationships with Brazil, India and other emerging economies to increase the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran?

William Hague: We always raise this issue with the emerging powers of the world. The position of such countries is generally not as favourable to sanctions, including on Iran, as our position and the general European and American position. Again, I hope that the detail of the IAEA report will increase the focus on the behaviour of Iran in countries such as Brazil and India.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that some countries believe that Britain and France should not have seats at the Security
	Council, but that there should be a European Union seat instead. Is he saying that when there is no consensus in the European Union and when Germany objects, we will in future abstain in the Security Council?

William Hague: No, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will never agree to an EU seat at the United Nations Security Council. It is important that British and French permanent membership is continued. Of course, there are many occasions on which we vote in different directions. However, on the middle east peace process, the EU has worked together to pursue a determined initiative in a united way, working with Cathy Ashton, so there is a premium on European unity being maintained on this issue.

James Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point with Iran and that a peaceful solution is looking more unlikely in relation to its nuclear programme?

William Hague: We are entering a more dangerous phase—let me put it that way. When the IAEA report is officially published, everybody will be able to see what it says. Of course, the longer Iran pursues a nuclear weapons programme without responding adequately to calls for negotiation from the rest of us, the greater the risk of a conflict will be.

Meg Munn: The importance of involving women in post-conflict situations is well known. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what support that the Government are providing to countries such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia is going specifically towards ensuring that women are fully involved in the development of democracy?

William Hague: Certainly some of our Arab Partnership fund is going towards that. In Egypt, for instance, we are helping to fund training for women to participate in the forthcoming elections. We also raise this issue more broadly with the new leaders in the region. When I visited Tripoli last month, I raised with Chairman Jalil of the national transitional council the importance of ensuring the wider involvement of women in society and politics in Libya. It will certainly help that country’s post-conflict reconstruction and progress if it does that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but the statement has run for just over an hour and we must move on, given the pressures of time.

Points of Order

Kate Green: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that I contacted your office first thing this morning to give notice of my intention to raise a point of order regarding amendments that I tabled last week on Report of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Three of those amendments related to employment rights for workers at the Legal Services Commission. I was advised on those amendments by the GMB trade union. My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests makes clear my membership of and relationship with that union, but I regret that I did not draw attention to that last week in the Chamber because the amendments did not relate specifically to the union, but to the rights of individual employees. None the less, I apologise to the House if hon. and right hon. Members have been misled. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to set the record straight.

Mr Speaker: That point of order was most courteous and the matter rests there. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow, Mr James Murdoch will return to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Will you confirm whether it would be in order for the Committee, if it chose to do so under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, to require him to give evidence under oath? Will you also confirm that if false evidence were given, he would be subject to penalties for perjury under the Perjury Act 1911?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the procedural position. I am familiar with both those Acts, which are important. I say to him that how these matters are pursued is for the determination of the Chair and members of the Committee.
	I think that there was another point of order, but perhaps it or the person responsible for it has been exhausted. That is probably just as well.

Travellers (Unauthorised Encampments)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Simon Kirby: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable police forces and local authorities in England and Wales to disperse unauthorised traveller encampments with the minimum of delay; and for connected purposes.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. I hope that it will address the concerns of my constituents in Brighton, Kemptown, the constituents of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), and the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members up and down the country regarding unauthorised Traveller encampments.
	We all recall the scenes at Dale Farm in Essex a few weeks ago. I am aware of the strength of feeling about unauthorised Traveller encampments in Brighton and Hove. I recently held a public meeting in Woodingdean in my constituency that was attended by more than 1,000 people. I have also taken part in a peaceful demonstration organised by local residents, which was attended by a similar number of people, near a site that has not been ruled out as a possible Traveller site by the Green-run Brighton and Hove city council. The refuse, damage and inconvenience that, whether we like it or not, often accompany unauthorised sites are more than some communities want to bear. There have been numerous incursions this year in Brighton, which have only aggravated the problems and heightened feelings on this matter.
	I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for his help in addressing some of these issues in the Westminster Hall debate that I secured early this year. However, it was clear from that debate that many hon. Members, with seats across the country, have their constituencies affected by this issue and that more therefore needs to be done. This is about protecting local green spaces and sports facilities. In my constituency, there have been unauthorised encampments at Happy Valley, Sheepcote Valley, Wild park and on the Black Rock site. Furthermore, Travellers riding motorbikes across football pitches while children are attempting to play football in front of their mums and dads is simply unacceptable.
	We need clarity and a strengthening of the law. My Bill seeks to achieve these two distinct aims, and has two objectives: the first is to give local authorities and the police additional powers and responsibilities to help to move unauthorised Traveller encampments on more quickly. Nothing irritates my constituents more than to see an illegal encampment on their doorsteps for weeks on end. They do not understand why the public authorities often seem powerless or unwilling to move on the vans, cars and other vehicles that so often accompany these events.
	The second objective is to clarify the law as it affects the police and local councils. Hon Members will be aware that the key Act regulating the relationship between the police and local authorities is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. As I understand it, there
	was a clear intention in that Act to enable unauthorised Traveller encampments to be moved on promptly, but over the years, because of case law and interpretation, it seems as though the Act is being implemented more liberally than the then Government had intended. Given what we have seen this year, it is time to restore the original intentions of the Act, and my Bill will do just that. It contains four provisions. First, it will clarify the Act so that the police have to take action when an unauthorised encampment appears. We know that the police are not obliged to move Travellers on, and this is a matter of real contention, especially in Brighton and Hove. It cannot be right that if a local authority or local landowner does not move quickly, neighbours of the site have to deal with the matter as best they can. The police should be obliged to move an unauthorised Traveller encampment whenever one occurs.
	Secondly, we need to review the welfare check process to ensure that when Travellers move within a local authority area, the authorities do not have to undertake the same checks on the same people again and again, so delaying the possibility of moving the Travellers on. It is nonsense to review the health and welfare of people checked only the week before, because it delays moving the Travellers on and causes frustration and concern for local residents. Clearly, where there are health and welfare matters to manage that affect an individual and their family, these should not be used as an excuse for delaying action against the whole Traveller group.
	Next, I believe that the authorities should have increased powers to impound Travellers’ caravans and associated vehicles, if the owners do not move on as directed. The existing powers in section 62C of the 1994 Act need strengthening. We need to end, once and for all, the cat-and-mouse issues that arise as Travellers move from one site to another one nearby. Often these sites and moves are a matter of only 100 yards or so, and as local taxpayers are paying to clear up the mess on one site, often the offenders have reappeared down the road, which puts the legal process back to square one. This cannot be right. The threat of impounding vehicles, if Travellers do not move on right away or if they do not comply with instructions issued to them, should be a serious deterrent to non-compliance
	Finally, there needs to be a requirement for local authorities to maintain an out-of-hours service so that
	the issue of unauthorised encampments can be addressed at weekends, in the evenings and on bank holidays. Any hon. Member who has had experience of Travellers in their constituency will know that they frequently arrive on a Friday evening and move on just before a court order is enforced. It seems to me that an out-of-hours service would not only enable work on the moving on of unauthorised encampments to begin immediately, but mean that welfare checks could be carried out more promptly.
	Much has been said about how seeking to move unauthorised Traveller encampments on more quickly is racist or discriminatory. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the Travelling and settled communities need clarity, which I hope that my Bill will increase. Hard experience has shown that after 17 years, the 1994 Act is not having the effect originally intended by Parliament and does not enable the police and local authorities to move Traveller encampments on quickly enough. When we witness these scenes, we cannot, as hon. Members, stand by and do nothing.
	Historically, the role of the House has been to strike a fair and appropriate balance between the roles and responsibilities of different groups of people in this country and to rectify that balance when necessary. The costs, the inconvenience and the sheer frustration of the settled community need to be addressed, which is what my Bill seeks to do with sensible step-by-step changes to existing laws, while acknowledging how the relationship between Travellers and the settled community has changed over recent years. The people of Brighton, Kemptown desperately want change and desperately need clarity, and people up and down the country want those two things as well. I believe that now is the time for both the change and the clarity. My Bill will help to bring about both.
	Question put and agreed to
	Ordered,
	That Simon Kirby, Mike Weatherley, Heather Wheeler, Nicholas Soames, Mark Garnier, Priti Patel, Jack Lopresti, Nigel Adams, Caroline Nokes, Karen Bradley, Robert Halfon and Paul Maynard present the Bill.
	Simon Kirby accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 247).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Un-allotted Day]

Border Checks Summer 2011

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the significant reduction in the level of security and border checks at UK ports of entry in the summer of 2011; and calls on the Government to publish immediately all relevant Home Office submissions to Ministers, together with the instructions from Home Office Ministers to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) regarding passport checks in the summer of 2011 and the relevant operational instructions from UKBA executives to staff and all data collected by the UKBA on the level of checks at each port of entry since July 2011.
	We have called this Opposition day debate to discuss the events in border control this summer, because Parliament and the public need answers. I am sorry that more Cabinet Ministers have not joined us for the debate, because this borders fiasco is now escalating. The Home Secretary did not answer all the questions put to her on Monday, she could not answer all those from the Home Affairs Select Committee today and she and her Immigration Minister are refusing to do television, radio or newspaper interviews on the subject. However, she cannot hide on the important issue of border control. Answers are needed, and her account of what led to the weakening of border controls this summer is now at odds not just with the memos from the UK Border Agency, but with the account of one her most senior officials, Brodie Clark.
	The public need the truth, so let us be clear about the information that the Home Secretary needs to provide. Most importantly, we still need to know the scale of the security breaches that have taken place. Does the Home Secretary yet have any estimate of how many people were affected by the weakening of border controls? The Prime Minister could not tell us today.
	On Monday the Home Secretary told us that she was concerned about the routine removal of checks for EU citizens, the suspension of the watch list in Calais and the suspension of fingerprinting non-EU citizens on top of the removal of watch list checks for children, which she authorised. Border agencies have told us of repeated cases in which adults did not have their passports swiped at all, along with no checks against the watch list, not just at Calais but at other ports. The Home Secretary needs to tell us whether that happened.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Yvette Cooper: Before I give way to Back Benchers, I should like to offer the Home Secretary the opportunity to intervene and tell us whether watch lists were relaxed—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The debate is going to continue, so everybody can listen to the debate, and if the right hon. Lady wishes to give way she will do so. We do not need people to keep coming up, one after another.

Yvette Cooper: I should like to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to clarify quickly whether the watch list was relaxed at any ports of entry other than Calais.

Alok Sharma: rose—

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has not intervened, so let me give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Alok Sharma: Listening to the tone of the right hon. Lady’s opening comments, one would almost think that her party had left immigration in absolutely perfect order. Let me remind her that it left a system which her own Home Secretary at the time said was “not fit for purpose”, with a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases, and that Lord Glasman, her own colleague, said:
	“Labour lied…about…immigration and the extent of illegal”—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The House will come to order on both sides, and if we are going to have interventions they must be much shorter and we must not make speeches. That will come later.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has obviously got himself into a Whips-induced lather, but if he is concerned about asylum cases he may want to ask the Home Secretary about the 100,000 cases that have now been written off, as identified in the Home Affairs Committee report.

Charlie Elphicke: I am a representative of Dover. This issue is a key concern to my constituents, as is Brodie Clark’s statement that such controls had been relaxed since about 2008-09. Who authorised that relaxation?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman, as a representative of Dover, will I know be concerned by the removal of the watch list checks in Calais. Like him, I certainly look forward to Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee next week. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary will be looking forward to his evidence in quite the same way, but I am sure that he will set out at that point—

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Government deliberately took an hour away from this time-limited debate with a statement that could easily have been made yesterday, will you make it difficult for hon. Members reading out Whips’ questions to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)?

Lindsay Hoyle: Sir Gerald knows as well as I do that that is not a point of order. He has certainly made the point that people were upset by the statement, but it is for the Government to decide the business of the House, and they control the business of the House. I have certainly already recommended shorter interventions, however, and I am sure that that will have been taken on board.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Home Secretary has still not told us the extent of the reduction in border checks throughout the country. She said on Monday that she had no clue how many people walked into the country under reduced checks. On Monday, she did not even know which airports were
	covered by her pilot projects and her decisions. Yesterday she told the Select Committee that she knew which airports were covered in theory, but she had no idea which ones had taken up her pilot project.
	Data exist, however. According to the internal e-mails that I have seen, downgrading checks to level 2 is recorded by terminals. Indeed, one would expect it to be. How could the so-called pilots be monitored if the data were not being collected on what was happening? So, does the Home Secretary have those data? Can she tell us now how many times checks were downgraded at how many airports since her decision in July? Has she even asked to see those data, and if she has not, why on earth not? What have this Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister been up to?
	If the Home Secretary does have access to the data and has seen the figures on the number of times that checks were downgraded to level 2, will she step up to the Dispatch Box now and tell us what the data say? The public have a right to know what the downgrade in security was this summer. Again, we hear a deafening silence from the Home Secretary. Again, we do not know what data were collected.

Robert Halfon: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he shares my concern that we still do not have any clear data on the way in which border security checks were downgraded this summer.

Robert Halfon: I have just a simple question for the right hon. Lady. How many people entered the UK without being checked against the warnings index between 2008 and 2010?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will want to know what is happening now, and what happened this summer. His Government and his Home Secretary cannot answer the questions. They cannot even tell us more about the pilots, or the decisions they thought they were taking—what they thought they were signing up to.
	We know that the Home Secretary thought that in theory her pilot covered European citizens, but in practice it routinely did so. That is a funny definition of a pilot. It was not just one Thursday afternoon a month in Luton; it was every airport and potentially every European citizen. Millions of them entered Britain this summer, and they formed the majority of foreign citizens entering the country, so how many of them missed the full checks? How many of them did the Home Secretary expect to face reduced checks when she gave the go-ahead for this so-called pilot earlier this year?
	We know, too, from the UK Border Agency’s internal minutes this summer that there was a reference to
	“mixed views on the summer pressures work, including the concern that not checking children on the watch list may facilitate child trafficking”.
	Officials raised that concern within the UKBA, and I raised it with the Home Secretary on Monday. She will know that the House has repeatedly expressed deep concern about people trafficking across Europe, so did she even consider those risks before she took her decision?
	The intention of Labour Ministers and, I had always understood, Conservative Ministers, too, was to strengthen our border checks year on year. We all agree that there were difficulties in the past, but I thought that we all agreed, too, on the remedy—that we should roll out e-Borders, biometrics and new technology; make sure that enough staff were in place so that we could increase checks and cover everybody properly by counting people in and out; and every year extend the technology and strengthen the checks.
	This Home Secretary and this Home Office made a conscious decision to turn the clock back and to reduce the checks. What they put in place this summer was a new regime of lower not higher checks, using less rather than more technology.

Sajid Javid: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether he believes we should strengthen and extend biometric tests, rather than reduce them.

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. In 2008, the then Government reduced warnings index checks on European economic area nationals, children and adults, on Eurostar services, and they did so on 100 separate occasions between 2008 and 2010. She was a senior member of the previous Government, so can she tell the House whether she supported that measure?

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman needs to understand that biometric checks increased every year under the Labour Government; his Government have undermined them and rolled them back. What is the point of Britain investing loads of money in biometric technology and passports, if we then switch off the system every time a European citizen goes through it? What on earth is the point of that investment, which our Government supported and were extending and rolling out, but which the hon. Gentleman’s party and his Government seem to have backed off from and ditched, undermining the border controls that are in place?

David Evennett: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. We are listening with great interest to her rewriting of history. Does she not agree that the Government of whom she was a member left the system in a real mess? This Government are trying to improve things and clear up the problem.

Yvette Cooper: If this is what the hon. Gentleman calls improving things—dearie me. We should be strengthening controls. Those controls had been strengthened, year on year, but in my view they should have gone further. We should be doing more to roll out e-Borders and extend biometrics. He does not seem to realise that his Home Secretary removed the biometric checks. She has been undermining many of the checks that should have been taking place.
	Secondly, we need to know who authorised what, because serious allegations have now been made, both by the Home Secretary against a senior civil servant and by a senior civil servant against the Home Secretary. Her advisers seem to have briefed the newspapers that
	Brodie Clark was a rogue official. She told the House that he had taken responsibility and that she would make sure that “those responsible are punished”. He has said that her statements were wrong. The Home Secretary has a history of high-level spats, but this is considerably more serious than a political row over immigration and the future of cats; this is a dispute over the security of our borders. We need to know what advice she was given. What were the precise terms of the pilots that she signed off? What was communicated to the UK Border Agency about her decision? Was the memo—which I know she is aware of—from the Border Agency saying that it would cease routine biometric checks of EU citizens cleared by her, the Minister for Immigration or Home Office officials? Is it an accurate or inaccurate reflection of the instructions that were sent out from her office, or the description of the pilot in the submission that she received and signed off?

Matthew Hancock: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: Again, I notice that the Home Secretary is silent, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. However, she has not yet mentioned the fact that Rob Whiteman, Mr Clark’s boss, has said that Mr Clark overstepped and did more than was authorised by Ministers. That is why he had to be suspended.

Yvette Cooper: We now have different accounts from different officials, the Home Secretary and the memos from the Border Agency that have been revealed. What the public want to know is the truth. That is why we need the information to be published. We need to know what information the Home Secretary gave to the Border Agency, what instructions were given to the Border Agency and what instructions were given by the Minister for Immigration. What information was provided to Ministers from the Border Agency? What monitoring did they ask for? What monitoring did her Minister for Immigration do? By the way, it is good to see him here today. He has been completely silent and absent from this entire debate. Indeed, in the light of these revelations, we wonder what job he is in fact doing. What information did either Minister ask for when they decided to extend the pilot just six weeks ago?

David Winnick: Is it not crucial that we know Mr Clark’s version of events? We look forward to his giving evidence next Tuesday, because so far we have simply had the Home Secretary. Why should a senior civil servant of 40 years standing wish to mislead us or give a wrong impression to Parliament?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right: we need to hear Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which will be important. However, we also need to know what it says in the instructions that the Home Secretary’s office gave to the Border Agency. That by itself should clear a lot of this up. What did she decide? What were her instructions to the Border Agency? Has it accurately reflected those instructions or not? She should publish that information and those data. Let us get to the bottom of what has been going on.
	Thirdly, the Home Secretary needs to provide us with more information and assurances about resources. It is clear from the internal memo and from the Border Agency that staff were under pressure. One internal management e-mail says:
	“If we aren’t using level 2”—
	the reduced level of checks—
	“the assumption is we won’t be using secondary staff to support any pressures…as you know, this is a message we have put out time and time again…We cannot continue to pull resources from other parts of our business when we are not making use of all the tools available to us”.
	In other words, the Border Agency was not allowed to ask for extra staff when things got busy unless it had already downgraded to a lower level of checks.
	People do not like queues when they come back from holiday—the kids are crying, it is very stressful, or perhaps they are late for a business meeting—but they stand there, looking at all the empty booths, and thinking, “Why aren’t the extra staff put on? Why aren’t the extra lines open?” Now we know the answer: because the Border Agency has been told that it has to cut the checks that are in place. Some 6,500 staff are going from the Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the border force, including more than 800 this year alone. The Prime Minister told the House with great pride that the level of staff was returning to the level of 2006. Really? I have to say that I do not think that border controls were strong enough in 2006. We were right to strengthen them and to keep strengthening them. [ Interruption. ] If Government Members really want to roll back the clock and reduce the checks and border controls that are in place across this country, they are completely out of touch with their constituents across the country, who want to see proper immigration controls in place.

Margot James: Does the right hon. Lady think that the border controls were ever strict enough under the last Government? Let me tell her that my constituents will never forgive that Government for letting in 2.2 million people, a population twice that of our nearest city, Birmingham.

Yvette Cooper: It was right to increase and strengthen those border controls and to increase biometric checks. However, if the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I have to ask her: does she agree with the pilot that her Home Secretary introduced, which reduced those biometric checks and removed checks against the watch list for EU children?

Margot James: I will not presume to comment on the decisions that the Home Secretary made, but I will say this. It was quite—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The House must come to order. We want to hear the interventions as well as the speeches.

Margot James: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was quite reasonable to assume that a pilot should be undertaken in the European economic area, such that not everybody was subjected to the same tests as those identified as being in a high-risk group. I do not see why anyone should argue with that decision.

Yvette Cooper: This is a pilot that covered millions of people over many months and has led to Home Secretary being unable to tell us how many people have wrongly been allowed into this country as a result.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Yvette Cooper: If Government Back Benchers want to declaim their support for the pilot, I will happily allow them to do so.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s generosity in giving way again. Does what she has said about 2006 mean that she agrees with the mea culpa—I think that was the phrase—of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee when he said that the problem started under her Labour Government?

Yvette Cooper: I agree that Labour Home Secretaries were right to increase the controls and to increase new technology, which is why I am so shocked that Conservative Ministers and the Conservative party are so enthusiastic about rolling back those border checks now. We have seen that the scale of the cuts is putting pressure on the UK Border Agency just as the scale of cuts to policing is putting pressure on community safety. People across the country fear that corners are being cut and that border security is being put at risk by the scale of the Government’s border cuts. This needs to be sorted out. We have had the embarrassing spectacle of a Home Secretary who does not know what she agreed to, how it was being implemented or how great the security risks were.

Tristram Hunt: It is a question not simply of cuts, but of competence. Whether with Building Schools for the Future or the selling off of forests, this Government are simply not fit for purpose.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The most shocking thing of all is that the Government do not seem to know what has been happening on their watch.
	Time and again, Ministers have blamed the previous Labour Government and civil servants, but the Home Secretary might want to think back to “Question Time” in 2004 and a debate with the then Immigration Minister, Beverley Hughes. The current Home Secretary said at that time that she found it
	“absolutely extraordinary that she’s…blamed officials in her department for this decision to be taken…I’m sick and tired of government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
	Indeed, Home Secretary.
	The House does not expect the Home Secretary to know every detail of what is going on in the agencies for which she is responsible all the time, but we expect her to get on top of things and to sort them out when they go wrong.
	Five days on, the public still do not know what on earth has been going on in the Home Office and at our borders. Time and again, this Home Secretary has not been on top of the facts and has not taken action to sort things out. She seems to be making things worse.
	We cannot afford a Home Secretary who cannot cope with a crisis or sort out a fiasco. Border security and public safety are too important for us to have a Home
	Secretary whose authority is continually being sapped. She cannot blame the previous Government and she cannot blame officials. It is her watch. She needs to provide the facts that she has been unable to provide so far and to provide the answers, and she needs to do so today.

Theresa May: May I first welcome the sudden interest of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in immigration and border security? It is a bit rich coming from the party that gave us 2.2 million total net migration, the foreign national prisoner scandal, Sangatte, a 450,000 asylum backlog, no transitional controls for eight eastern European countries, the Human Rights Act 1998, and a points-based system that failed to reduce immigration.
	The Leader of the Opposition says that immigration was not too high under Labour; the shadow Home Secretary claims that the previous Government were reducing immigration; and now they have appointed a shadow Immigration Minister who says that public concern about immigration is “nonsense” and “huff and puff” generated by tabloid newspapers. None the less, I am willing to welcome any convert to the cause of controlling immigration.
	Let me remind the House why we are here. As I said in my statement to Parliament on Monday, there are two separate issues. First, as I have explained, the Immigration Minister and I authorised a limited pilot this summer, which—in limited and specific circumstances—allowed the UK border force to use more intelligence-led checks against higher-risk passengers and journeys instead of always checking European economic area national children travelling with parents and in school groups against the warnings index, and always checking EEA nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport. In normal circumstances, all standard checks would be carried out.
	That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do—stronger checks on high-risk passengers aimed to achieve more arrests, more seizures of illegal goods and more stops of illegal immigrants. Far from weakening our border controls, those procedures were aimed at strengthening our border. The results of the pilot are not yet fully evaluated, but initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.
	I therefore want to be absolutely clear to the House: my pilot did not in any way put border security at risk. That was my assessment, and it is the assessment of UKBA and security officials.

Yasmin Qureshi: Why was the Prime Minister not informed that those pilot schemes were being carried out?

Theresa May: If that is the best question the hon. Lady can come up with, I am sorry I gave way to her.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: The second and very separate issue is that senior UK border force officials, without my authorisation, ordered the regular relaxation of border checks, beyond
	what I had sanctioned, and not just in the limited circumstances that I had authorised. First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without my approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without my approval.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped on regular occasions, without my approval. Not only that, but checks on the second photograph in the biometric chip of passports of non-EEA nationals were also regularly stopped, again without my approval.
	Let me say again: I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions. In fact, I stated explicitly in writing that officials were to go no further than what had been agreed in the pilot—[ Interruption. ]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We want to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. We want a debate on Home Affairs, so let us listen to what is said. If she does not wish for hon. Members to intervene, she will not give way. If she gives way, that is fine, but at the moment, we must listen to her.

Theresa May: As I said, I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions.

David Blunkett: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to a former Home Secretary.

David Blunkett: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. Did any other Minister give their consent or, by indicating that they needed to clear the backlog at Heathrow, indicate that any measures should be taken to free-up resources to do that?

Theresa May: I am setting out very clearly the pilot that was given consent by the Immigration Minister and I.

Chris Bryant: The Home Secretary says that she put something in writing. Is she prepared to put everything that she put in writing in the public domain in the Library of the House this afternoon, so that, instead of having to take just her word for what her pilot was, we can see the truth in black and white?

Theresa May: All relevant documents will be going to the relevant inquiries. That is entirely the right way to do it.
	I remind hon. Members that last night, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman, confirmed that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, admitted to him that he went beyond ministerial instructions. That is why Mr Whiteman suspended Mr Clark immediately. He took that decision as chief executive of UKBA, and before he informed me of his meeting with Mr Clark. Subsequently, two other senior officials have been suspended and I have ordered three separate investigations, as I outlined to
	the House on Monday, and I have placed the terms of reference for those inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

David Burrowes: Since 2008, warnings index checks have been suspended on 100 occasions. Has my right hon. Friend discovered whether those suspensions were authorised by previous Labour Home Secretaries?

Theresa May: That is a very interesting question. I note that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford chose not to answer it when she was asked it during an intervention.
	I am aware that Mr Clark has released a statement—it was referred to by the right hon. Lady—in which he made several allegations. Those allegations will of course be addressed by the inquiries, but as they relate to what I have already told the House, I would like to address them. First, he says that he did not introduce
	“additional measures, improperly, to the trial of our risk-based controls.”
	But let me read to the House the statement issued last night by Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency:
	“Brodie Clark admitted to me on 2nd November that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than Ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

John Denham: The right hon. Lady’s case is that she agreed to weaken border controls in July—[Hon. Members: “No!”]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must make the same point again. We all want to hear the interventions; otherwise, the Home Secretary cannot answer.

John Denham: The right hon. Lady agreed to weaken border controls in July. She then tells the House that what actually happened went much further than she intended. Will she now tell us why she agreed to extend this policy of weaker border controls in September? Is it not the case that, had she asked the most basic questions of Mr Clark or anybody else about what was actually happening in ports and airports, she would have known that thousands of people were coming into this country unchecked?

Theresa May: I have already made it absolutely clear to the House that the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. My pilot did not put border security at risk. That is not just my assessment; it is the assessment of UKBA and of security officials.
	Mr Clark says that
	“those measures have been in place since 2008/09.”
	But if he is talking about the warnings index guidance, published in 2007, that guidance makes it clear that any relaxation of warnings index checks should be done in extreme circumstances for health and safety reasons. It does not permit the extent of the relaxations that were allowed. And if he thought that these measures were
	already allowed, why did he seek ministerial approval for new pilot measures this year? I gave no authorisation for the relaxation of checks beyond what we had allowed under the terms of the pilot. But, given that Mr Clark says that his relaxed measures were allowed since 2008-09, can Ministers from the last Government give the same assurance?

Jack Straw: Could the Home Secretary tell us which ports or airports she has visited, from the instigation of the pilot in July up to now, and with whom she discussed the progress of the pilots on those visits?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we allowed the pilot to take place, and the evaluation of it to come up to Ministers at the end of the pilot.
	Mr Clark says that I implied that he
	“relaxed the controls in favour of queue management”.

Jack Straw: Do I take it from the Home Secretary’s answer that she visited no ports or airports in that time period?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I was willing to allow officials to make an evaluation—[ Interruption. ] I will come on later in my speech to the point about the information that was available to Ministers.
	Mr Clark says that I implied that he
	“relaxed the controls in favour of queue management”
	and that he came under pressure from Ministers to reduce queues, but I have never speculated about his motives, and I have never told officials to reduce queues at the expense of border security. Finally, Mr Clark says that he had been pressing for the trials “since December 2010” and that he was pleased when I agreed to the pilot arrangements. He certainly was pressing for changes to border checks, including the suspension of automatic fingerprint checks of visa nationals, which I rejected. But now, of course, he says that such measures were already available to him, and have been since 2008-09. I stand by every word I told the House on Monday and yesterday and again today.
	I now want to turn to the questions raised by the shadow Home Secretary. She said repeatedly that I had not yet answered them—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for giving evidence to the Select Committee yesterday. When she did so, she made a profound statement about the future of the UK Border Agency, saying that the UKBA of today would be very different from the UKBA of tomorrow. What will be the main differences, once she has completed what appears to be a reform programme?

Theresa May: I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Select Committee for the light that it has shone, for some considerable time, on the UK Border Agency under this Government and the previous one. The precise shape of UKBA in the future is under discussion at the moment.
	The new chief executive has been in post for six weeks, and he is looking at what he thinks needs to be done. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the issues that we are looking at is the question of establishing the border police command under the National Crime Agency and the relationship that it will have with the UK Border Agency.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I will not give way.
	I was about to deal with the questions raised by the shadow Home Secretary. She has repeatedly said that I have not answered her questions. If she reads Hansard, she will find that I have, but let me answer them again. She asked for the precise terms of the pilot scheme that I authorised. I have just set out those terms. I authorised the pilot, under limited circumstances, to allow UK border force officers to use more intelligence-led checks against higher-risk passengers and journeys, instead of always checking EEA national children travelling with parents and in school groups against the warnings index, and always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport.
	The shadow Home Secretary also asked whether I, Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials signed off the operational instruction distributed by UKBA. The answer in all three cases is no. This was a regular operational instruction, and she should know that Ministers—under this Government or the last—do not sign off such instructions. UKBA operational instructions are signed off by UKBA officials. She asked whether the operational instruction distributed reflected Government policy, and I can tell her that yes, it did, in that it allowed for a risk-based assessment—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) should know better than to keep standing.

Theresa May: The operational instruction did reflect Government policy because it allowed for a risk-based assessment when opening the biometric chip of EEA passports and checking EEA national children against the warnings index when they were travelling with parents or as part of a school party.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has just made an extremely important statement. She said that the UK Border Agency’s interim operational instruction did reflect Government policy. That operational instruction says
	“We will cease:
	Routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.
	Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index” .
	If that is Government policy, it is little wonder that, across the country, people have been routinely stopping doing the biometric checks in EU passports and stopping doing the watch index checks. The instruction does not say “Only in exceptional or limited circumstances”. It says “We will cease routinely” to do those checks.

Theresa May: The whole point is that they were allowed, in certain circumstances, not to open the chip—[ Interruption. ] The whole point is that they were allowed,
	in certain circumstances, not to check children against the warnings index. And the whole point is that officers were allowed to exercise their discretion.
	Where the instruction says that officers should escalate further measures, it refers of course to the warnings index checking policy put in place in 2007 under the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a member. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that the quotes she has been eagerly e-mailing around the Lobby come from a policy put in place by her own Government.
	The right hon. Lady referred to staff numbers. What she failed to tell the House was that in April 2010 the Labour Government had already announced that they would cut the budget and the staff of the UK Border Agency.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has not answered an extremely important question. She has accused officials of going much further, of using routinely the reduced checks that she wanted in only limited circumstances. That is one of her main allegations—officials going further than her decision and her advice. The interim operational instruction that the Home Secretary says reflects Government policy and was her intention is described as “Trial of risk-based processes at the border,” and states:
	“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”
	The document goes on to talk about discretion, but the discretion is to go further, not to cease the process only in limited circumstances. Will the right hon. Lady now recognise that the document shows that her intention and her policy were substantially to expand the reduction of checks for EEA citizens across the country and to reduce controls at our border?

Theresa May: I answered that point on Monday, on Tuesday and this afternoon. The right hon. Lady knows full well what was in the pilot I authorised.
	The right hon. Lady asked what information was given to Ministers when we decided to extend the pilot programme. As I told the Select Committee yesterday, Ministers were provided with four updates on the progress of the pilot prior to the agreement to extend it. The updates provided information about seizures of drugs and detection of illegal immigrants. They did not refer to unauthorised actions; in fact, they explicitly said that officials were sticking to the terms of the pilot and not going beyond them.
	The right hon. Lady asked about child trafficking. I answered that question on Monday in the House and before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. For the information of the House, in 2010 8 million EEA-national children were checked against the warnings index. An alert came up for one child, and after further questioning the child was allowed in.

David Simpson: Could the Home Secretary confirm to the people of Northern Ireland that the relaxations extended to Northern Ireland, especially at the ports of Larne and Stranraer?

Theresa May: As Stranraer is not an international port, the pilot did not cover it.

Pete Wishart: rose —

Angela Smith: rose —

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady asked—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We do not need advice from the Back Benches, especially from the back row.

Theresa May: The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford asked how many people Ministers expected would not be checked, and whether an impact assessment would quantify that figure. The answer is that under the terms of the pilot I authorised, all adults would be checked against the warnings index, as would all non-EEA nationals of any age, which, incidentally, was not always the case under the Labour Government when she was a member.
	Let me reiterate: whatever the shadow Immigration Minister keeps saying, the only incident of which I am aware when passengers were waved through passport control without any checks at all did not occur during my pilot. It happened in 2004, at Heathrow, under the right hon. Lady’s Government.
	Let me tell the House what this Government are doing to secure our border: a national crime agency with a border policing command and e-Borders to check passengers in and out of the country. We have tough enforcement: 400,000 visas were rejected last year and 68,000 people with the wrong documents were prevented from coming to Britain. We have policies to cut and control immigration: economic migration—capped; abuse of student visas—stopped; and automatic settlement—scrapped. There are compulsory English language tests, tough new rules for family visas and changes to the Human Rights Act. We have a clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.
	What do we hear from the Opposition? Nothing. Nothing on the cap on economic migration. Nothing on the clampdown on student visas. Nothing on settlement. Nothing on sham marriages. No wonder, when the Leader of the Opposition’s policy adviser said that Labour lied to the public about immigration—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Nobody will be able to hear anything either in the House or on the television broadcasts. I am sure everybody on both sides of the House wants to hear the Home Secretary.

Theresa May: The public want us to reduce and control immigration, and at long last they have a Government who will do just that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that there is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Alan Johnson: It was Herbert Morrison who said that the walls of the Home Office were paved with dynamite. It is true, but the Home Secretary is busily placing those sticks of dynamite herself. One is marked “Cuts in police numbers”. One is marked “Restricting the ability of the police to
	use DNA to catch murderers and rapists”. Another is marked "Enforced introduction of police commissioners that will cost a small fortune and that nobody wants". The only surprise is that the issue—

Robert Halfon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Johnson: I will give way in a minute.
	The only surprise is that the one marked “Immigration” has exploded quite so quickly in No. 2 Marsham street. Like many others, I predict that the Government’s pledge to reduce immigration to the levels of the 1980s will not be met, because we live in a very different world from the 1980s. In government, I admitted that we were slow to come to terms—as were many other countries—with the huge increase in migration from places such as Iraq, Kosovo, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. We were using a 20th-century system to deal with a 21st-century problem, but after the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we progressively managed to get on top of the issue—bit by bit. With only a dribble of asylum seekers entering the country, it took 22 months even to get an asylum claim to the first stage under the preceding Conservative Government, but by the time we left office it was taking six months. The introduction of biometric visas and e-borders all made a contribution.
	The Home Secretary might like to correct her remark on Monday that since the introduction of the points-based system, immigration has not gone down. It has. The difficulty for her is that immigration and net migration are two different things. The Government have no control over the number of people leaving the country, just as they have no control, incidentally, over mortality or the birth rate—thank goodness; unless it is in their plans for the Queen’s Speech. In fact, net immigration has gone down; it fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and to 147,000 in 2009. It has only gone up again since this Government came into power.
	The problem is complex, and e-borders are central to its solution. We could have all the checks in the world, but the majority of illegal immigrants in this country have entered the country legally and overstayed their visa. It is not until the e-borders system—the Government have supported it; I presume that they will keep to the same programme—checks people out as well as checking them in that we shall actually solve the problem.
	For the Home Secretary, solving these problems was simple. The rhetoric, as usual, was at absolute variance with reality.

David Blunkett: Can my right hon. Friend confirm a point that the Home Secretary referred to earlier? It was agreed in May 2004 to allow people permitted to be in this country legally to work legally, but 40% of those who registered to work were already in the country. That is why proper legal processes for economic migration and tough border controls have to go hand in hand.

Alan Johnson: I do confirm that. The Home Secretary talked about Sangatte on Monday, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who, in an incredible piece of political acumen, did a deal with Sarkozy effectively
	to move our border from Dover to northern France. That made a huge contribution as well. I find it incredible that the Home Secretary formulated and introduced plans to reduce the crucial biometric checks while the threat level was at its second highest; it was at severe at the time, and it was lowered to substantial only in July. In effect, she turned the UK into a semi-Schengen country by not requiring full checks on EEA citizens.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned dynamite. I wonder whether he thinks that one of those pieces of dynamite might be the almost half a million unsolved asylum cases that his Government left in a warehouse when the present Government came in?

Alan Johnson: If it is, it will go right back to when Willie Whitelaw was the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] “Ah!” they say. I can tell hon. Members why they say “Ah!”. It is because they do not know—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. People want to listen to interventions, and we certainly want to listen to the answers from Alan Johnson.

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Alan Johnson: Government Members are in happy ignorance of the fact that all this built up over many years under successive Conservative Home Secretaries, and it was the Labour Government who got on top of the issue in the end.

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) should not stand up for such a long time. If he wishes to intervene, he must rise quickly and then sit down straight away.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) was not making much impression on me, anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Home Secretary claimed on Monday that those on the watch list will have been picked up because of e-borders, but she knows as well as I do that not every country is meticulous at operating e-borders. It is patchy around the European Union.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Johnson: I have given way twice; everyone knows that we give way twice in these debates.
	Again, what the Home Secretary was saying was at variance with what she was doing. In June, the Home Secretary was pledging to stop tens of thousands of migrants seeking to enter Britain through Europe as part of the exodus resulting from the Arab spring. She was saying that just as she was about to reduce checks on those people entering from Europe. In November last year, she said:
	“I want to bear down on all the routes into Britain”.
	Ending the necessity to check the biometrics can be described as a lot of things, but “bearing down” is not one of them.
	On Monday, the Home Secretary described the biometric chip as if it were just a photograph. It is, of course, much more than that. The provision of geometric dimensions means that the identity thief and even the
	terrorist who has plastic surgery to disguise himself or herself cannot get through. A lot of things can be done with surgery, but eyeballs cannot be moved further apart. The biometrics are crucial to our security.
	Let us come to the Home Secretary’s attempts to blame her officials for the mess that she is in. The treatment of Brodie Clark, whom I know, respect and admire, has been reprehensible. If it was right to suspend him from office because he had not informed the Home Secretary, why is it right for the Home Secretary still to be in place when she had not informed the Prime Minister, who bears ultimate responsibility for these issues? Brodie Clark may well have been suspended for operating the 2008-09 guidance, which says that when the police say that there is a public order issue, it has to be responded to. That was the reference.
	The Beecroft proposals have not yet been introduced. The Government have not yet wiped away the unfair dismissal rules, which means that Brodie Clark will go to court, he will win his case and this Home Secretary will have nowhere to hide.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—even on this occasion. He was a decent Home Secretary, but I am afraid that his argument today was indecent in its preposterousness, especially when he tried to claim that the large increase in migration that took place after 1997 was somehow the result of international considerations beyond anybody’s control, and nothing to do with the policy decisions taken by the then Labour Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman just once in this debate to look at the facts—

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: If the hon. Lady will listen to the facts first, I will give way to her afterwards. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the facts of net migration and migration as a whole before 1997, he will see that in the month after his Government took office in 1997, net migration stood at 52,000. It had been 70,000 the previous year. In the years that followed, it went up to 74,000, 157,000, 161,000 and 187,000—almost entirely due to the decision of that Labour Government to grant more work permits for workers from outside the European Union, which was a conscious policy decision.

Angela Smith: rose—

Robert Halfon: rose—

James Clappison: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

Robert Halfon: I note that my hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these matters. Does not what he has just said explain why the chief adviser to the Labour party leader, Lord Glasman, said that the Labour party lied to the people about immigration?

James Clappison: The facts are facts: we can see what the deliberate policy decisions were, and the motives behind them may come to light in due course.
	As for what took place after that period when net migration exploded up to 233,000, we have to look at what happened when the accession countries joined the European Union in 2005 when the then Labour Government estimated the number of workers who had come from within the European Union at about 13,000 a year. We know that that was completely wrong. While we saw the huge increase in the number of workers coming to this country from within the EU, the Labour Government—and this is particularly reprehensible—continued giving just as many work permits to workers from outside the EU.

Angela Smith: rose —

James Clappison: If the hon. Lady wants to say that any of those facts are wrong, I will give way to her.

Angela Smith: There was an increase in migration in the late ’90s, due partly to a major conflict in the Balkans, which was made necessary because of the appeasement delivered to Slobodan Milosevic by the previous Tory Government. They bear responsibility for that migration as well.

James Clappison: I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady this, but at the time of the Balkans conflict, net migration was negative. The policy decisions to increase the number of work permits to workers from outside the European Union are crucial; there is a close correlation. Those are the facts.

Matthew Hancock: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that nobody will believe a single word from Labour Members until they apologise for the mess they made?

James Clappison: Yes.
	Coming back to this motion, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this debate. I am afraid that she and her party have failed to produce a single fact or any evidence in support of the motion. They have not even bothered to wait for the evidence of the Home Affairs Committee or for any of the three inquiries that the Home Secretary has rightly put in place, including the one by John Vine, who is the chief inspector and an appointee of the previous Government.
	In trying to throw the kitchen sink into the motion, the right hon. Lady even mentioned the 100,000 legacy figure. She asked who was responsible for how the 100,000 people under the legacy exercise have been dealt with. She need not have looked much further than the person sitting next to her—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—because the former Minister for Immigration was partly responsible for the legacy exercise. The question she really needs to ask is how she thinks the 500,000 cases arose before 2006, which had to be dealt with in the legacy exercise. Asylum cases had not been properly dealt with. Some of the people involved had waited for many years and some had been refused permission to remain in the country. Now, however, the right hon. Lady is trying to blame the Government for that. She made some comment about 2006 being a starting point, but who had been in power before 2006? She need look no further this time than the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw),
	who has been in his place for this debate. He was the Home Secretary who put the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in place. Against that background, how did we reach a position whereby 500,000 people’s cases were lingering, mouldering, waiting to be dealt with and had to be the subject of a legacy exercise in 2006?

Jack Straw: rose—

James Clappison: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will speak in this debate, so I will get a chance to intervene on him. He can explain how each of two previous asylum exercises came to admit more and more people irregularly.

Jack Straw: rose —

James Clappison: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell me what a success that was.

Jack Straw: As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the problems involving asylum backlogs date back until at least the early 1990s, when the Berlin wall came down. I do not think that we are assisted by the trading of histories—what matters is today—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to do that, let me add that a computer system introduced by Lord Howard, which we were promised would become operational in November 1998, failed to operate at all. That was the mother and father of the backlog then, and it still is.

James Clappison: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me an equally long intervention when he makes his own speech.
	I happened to be a member of a Committee that the right hon. Gentleman addressed, as Home Secretary, in 1999. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I recall that he said, “There is no greater challenge to the Labour Government than to put in place an asylum system which works.” We can see what happened after that.
	The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford overlooked another problem that occurred in 2006: the terrible problem of prisoners who were not deported. A thousand prisoners were not even considered for deportation. It was not just a question of people being allowed into the country; people were allowed into the country, committed offences, and then were not considered for deportation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having established a system which now ensures that criminals who commit offences are considered for deportation; and, as will be acknowledged by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), his Committee’s report congratulated her on that as well.
	I shall wait for the evidence and the facts to be produced. What I am clear about, however, is that the present Government have a policy intention of reducing migration to proper levels, of establishing a proper system enabling the right migrants to be chosen to come to this country, and of not allowing the unrestricted immigration that we have seen in the past. Furthermore,
	they are tackling the long-standing problems of asylum, and are introducing systems to bring about the deportation of foreign prisoners that is so important to my constituents.
	I believe that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is a person of high intellect and high ability who puts the case as well as she can, and she did that today. I am afraid, however, that she completely failed to establish any facts or evidence in support of the motion. What she did demonstrate beyond peradventure was that, however great her intellect—and it is great—she has an even greater brass neck, in view of the record of the last Labour Government.

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has just told the House that he is ready to wait for the evidence and the results of the inquiry before reaching conclusions, and I think he is right to do so. It is a great shame that the Secretary of State jumped to conclusions impetuously, without any proper evidence and without allowing others to respond.
	At the heart of this debate are the issues of the conduct of the Home Secretary and the level of ministerial responsibility, in terms of both competence in running a Department and moral responsibility for what happens in that Department.

George Howarth: There is a long-established principle that Ministers take responsibility for what goes on in their Departments, and to be fair, the Home Secretary confirmed that principle earlier in the week. Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what she means by taking responsibility for her Department?

Jack Straw: As I shall explain, the issue is not whether a Minister mouths the words, but whether, in practice, that Minister acts in a way that demonstrates his or her responsibility for what happens in his or her Department.
	The truth about the Home Office—which is the subject of all kinds of dark jokes, particularly when new Home Secretaries enter it—is that things are more likely to go wrong there than in any other Department. That is not because its staff are of less high quality than other staff; far from it. Overwhelmingly, the staff in all parts of the Home Office who served me during the four years for which I was Home Secretary showed the highest possible skill, dedication and commitment. They possessed the added attribute that they were dealing with people—such as prisoners, criminals and illegal immigrants—with whom most of us would not wish to deal day by day or week by week.
	The fact that the Home Office is so often in the limelight for the wrong reasons, because there is a “fiasco” or “crisis”, is due to the nature of its business. Other Departments generally work with the grain of the people with whom they deal. There are two obvious examples. In schools, parents and pupils want, roughly speaking, what teachers and the Secretary of State want, which is better education. When it comes to health, patients and their relatives want the same as nurses, doctors and the Secretary of State, which is improved health care. The same does not apply in the Home Office, which is at the sharp end of the operation
	of the state. However much we may dress it up, the business of the Home Office is actually about enforcing the state’s monopoly over the use of force, and its monopoly over the deprivation of other people’s liberties. It is a hard, tough job, both for the person at the top and for those all the way down.
	The other aspect that lies behind one of the core arguments in the debate is that, because the Home Office’s business is about the use of force, the deprivation of liberty and the refusal of rights, junior, young and quite inexperienced staff must often be accorded a very high level of discretion—discretion to arrest people, to allow them in, to lock them up, and so on—which is not accorded to equivalent people elsewhere. The whole system will seize up unless those lower down believe that those at the top are worthy of their confidence, and are ready to take responsibility when things go wrong.
	I am not dewy-eyed about what can go wrong in a very large Department—of course not—and no Secretary of State is responsible for locking every cell door or checking every border. I recall occasions when, after a full and careful inquiry, one or two people had to be invited to pursue their careers elsewhere. That is inevitable. However, I believe that it must be done in a way that is judicious and judicial. Secretaries of State must ensure that they take the overwhelming majority of their staff with them. What they should not do—I am sorry that the Home Secretary has embarked on this—is adopt what appears to me, whatever the right hon. Lady’s personal motives, to be both a vindictive and a punitive approach of hanging someone out to dry because it seemed to her that that would be a way of saving her career.

Stewart Jackson: I think that the House would take the right hon. Gentleman slightly more seriously were it not for the case of, say, Mr Steve Moxon, who in 2004 revealed the evident failings of the previous Administration on immigration, particularly in relation to one-legged Romanian and Bulgarian roofers. For his pains he was hounded out of office, as indeed was the then Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston, the right hon. Beverley Hughes.

Jack Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting for a second that any illegal immigrant painted my house. If that is what he was suggesting, he should withdraw the suggestion immediately.

Stewart Jackson: I am happy to clarify what I said. There is evidently a double standard in what the right hon. Gentleman says. He talks of keeping the respect and trust of people who work in the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice, but those who have revealed the failings of the last Administration on immigration have been hounded out of their jobs.

Jack Straw: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am a little concerned about the length of that intervention. I am also concerned about what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) was trying to allude to when he mentioned double standards.

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I find the hon. Gentleman’s point, at best, completely incomprehensible.

David Blunkett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: Let me return, if I may, to the issue of the Home Secretary’s responsibility. As I was saying, it is the nature of the business, not the nature of the staff, that makes Home Secretaries so vulnerable to things going wrong. I find myself comparing the behaviour of the present Home Secretary with that of Sir Paddy Mayhew, now Lord Mayhew, when he was Northern Ireland Secretary. Some of us were in the House at the time.
	On 2 January 1995, the Northern Ireland equivalent of the House of Commons suffered a serious fire and was almost burnt to the ground. Sir Patrick Mayhew, as he then was, set up an inquiry. He gave the results to the House on 19 April, and I remember sitting there admiring the way in which a Secretary of State had taken responsibility for a disaster on the chin. He described what had happened. He pointed out that there had been no fire drills for five years, and that the fire hydrants had suffered from a particular defect: an “absence of water”. He said that new instructions had been issued and disciplinary action had been taken against the staff, but that was after a full inquiry—not before those staff had had a chance to explain themselves—and the staff were not named. It could have been a catastrophe for that Secretary of State because he was, indeed, responsible, but because he set the tone for the inquiry and followed proper procedures, he left the Chamber with his reputation enhanced, not diminished.
	Among all who have held the post of Home Secretary there is, regardless of party divide, some camaraderie and understanding about the predicaments one can face. My concern about the current Home Secretary is that she will end this episode with her reputation diminished. I had dealings with Mr Brodie Clark, and I found him to be a very good official. It may be the case that he has done all the things said of him, but, like anyone in such circumstances, he deserves a proper inquiry—he deserves a proper hearing. Hanging him and the other officials out to dry without their having any opportunity to respond or there being any proper process, thereby condemning him before there has been a trial, not only damages his rights, but greatly demeans the reputation of the current holder of the great office of state of Home Secretary.

Tom Brake: I had expected Opposition Members to take a humility pill before today’s debate, but they have clearly left their prescriptions at home. Labour has admitted that it presided over a Government Department that was not fit for purpose. Members on both sides of the House will be personally aware of the backlog of 450,000 asylum cases from the impact that has had on many of our constituents over many years. When the spokesman for the official Opposition opened the debate, she admitted that border checks were not strong enough in 2006—although I cannot recall her admitting that at the time. I am sure she can also confirm that in 2004, when there were no controls at all at Heathrow, border checks were also certainly not strong enough. I wonder whether she has attempted to calculate how many people passed through the Heathrow borders in 2004.

Jack Straw: On the issue of humility, would the right hon. Gentleman like to confirm that the Liberal Democrat party opposed each and every measure introduced by
	the previous Government starting from, and including, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was designed to strengthen border controls, and which did precisely that?

Tom Brake: If we look at—[Interruption.] If we look at the catalogue of disasters under the last Labour Government—[Interruption.] The catalogue—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Members must stop shouting at each other across the Chamber. Points can be made in debate, but they must not be made by Members screaming at each other while another Member is trying to make a speech.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was saying that if we look back on the catalogue of disasters under the last Labour Government, we can see why we did not support the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals.
	I welcome the pilot and the emphasis on intelligence-led checks on very high-risk passengers and journeys. That has clearly had a very positive impact, as is shown by the preliminary results, such as the 10% increase in respect of illegal immigrants and, as we heard from the Prime Minister, the 100% increase in firearms seizures. I also welcome the reviews that have been launched into what has happened over the past few days and the review of the pilot. I particularly welcome the fact that on Monday the Home Secretary confirmed that she would be happy for John Vine to look at every aspect of this episode, including the ministerial decisions that were taken. However, I would just gently point out that that is not included in his terms of reference, but the fact that the Home Secretary put it on the record earlier this week confirms that he has that remit.
	If we are serious—as I think Members on both sides of the House are—about improving security at our borders, one aspect that we could usefully address is the progress being made in respect of the border police command in the National Crime Agency. In the long term, that will clearly have a very positive impact on the security of our borders. An update on the progress being made in establishing that body would have been useful, and perhaps the Minister will give us that information in his winding-up speech. We would like to know, for instance, what progress is being made in drawing up the comprehensive cross-agency assessment of the threat posed to border security by organised crime; that is a key aspect of the border policing command responsibilities. I would also like the Minister to say whether the reviews that have been launched will have any impact on the business plan that is being drawn up, particularly as it relates to developing the smart zone concept for processing pre-checked low-risk passengers through border controls. Might these reviews have an impact beyond the topics under immediate scrutiny, which concern all hon. Members?
	I know that many other Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that what the events of the last three or four days have underlined is that in 13 years the previous Government did not reform a Department that was deemed to be not fit for purpose, and that the
	coalition Government have not completed the reform yet either, but we are committed to doing that and we will achieve it in this Parliament.

Gerald Kaufman: It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), because it was he who treated the House to his knowledge that the Liberal Democrats were going to win the Oldham by-election. That shows the quality of his judgment, and the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrat party on immigration control fills us with disgust. My anti-Semitic Liberal Democrat opponent at the general election tried to turn body scans of women at airports into an election issue, in the hope of winning votes from Muslims. I can put up with the Conservatives because they are what they are, but the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrat party on issue after issue turns my stomach.
	This debate is about the fact that there are now in this country a very large number of people whose numbers we do not know and whose whereabouts we do not know, and who may include terrorists, and this Government’s policy and this Home Secretary’s decisions have made that possible. Let us be clear, too, that this disaster could have been foreseen because from the moment when the Home Secretary came to office, she has refused to be involved in any way in the administration of immigration cases. There are a very large number of immigration cases in my constituency, yet she, unlike Douglas Hurd, a reputable person, and unlike Willie Whitelaw, also a reputable person, has refused to touch those cases. My constituency immigration cases and those of other Members have instead been siphoned down to the hapless Minister for Immigration, who sits in his office signing letters that have been put in front of him by the UK Border Agency, whose activities the Government now decry. This Government have made a mess of immigration policy because of the arrogance and indolence of the current Home Secretary.

Stephen Pound: The Minister for Immigration does not need me to fight his corner for him, but may I tell my right hon. Friend that I have had seven individual meetings on seven individual immigration cases with the Minister?

Gerald Kaufman: I am not knocking the Minister for Immigration—poor chap, he does what he is left to do—but the fact is that this arrogant and indolent Home Secretary will not touch immigration and because of that she does not know what goes on at the ports, she does not know what goes on in the immigration departments, and she does not know what goes on in Islamabad, Dubai or Abu Dhabi. That is because she does not care; she thinks she is too important to deal with the nuts and bolts of administration. My right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), both former Home Secretaries who have spoken in this debate, did do that. They were ready to listen and to look at the nuts and bolts. That is what is wrong with her. I say again that it is her arrogance and her indolence that have made this possible.

Margot James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. She can sit down and she can read out what the Whips have given her on some other occasion.
	Other Conservative Ministers—

Stephen Phillips: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not trouble the House with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), but he has now three times described the Secretary of State as “arrogant and indolent”, which, if not unparliamentary, is offensive. Being a new Member, I would ask whether he needs to withdraw those comments.

Dawn Primarolo: I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman are not unparliamentary, in the sense that they are not impugning the personal honesty of a Member of this House. But comments are being made by Members on both sides and we would all want to reflect on whether they show this House at its best. They are sailing pretty close to the wind of good parliamentary conduct, and I take this opportunity, therefore, to say that there is no requirement for anything that has been said thus far to be withdrawn, but perhaps everybody could bear that in mind.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman may, in the short time that remains to him as a Member of this House before the next general election, learn what is parliamentary language and what is not.
	The fact is that, unlike Lord Carrington, who resigned over the Falklands even though he was not to blame, and unlike other Tory Ministers who were honourable and who resigned, this Home Secretary is trying to save her own skin by destroying the career of a decent public servant, who is not being given the chance to answer for himself, although he will get that before the Home Affairs Committee in a few days’ time. This Home Secretary is not fit for purpose. She may not resign now, but her days are numbered.

Nicola Blackwood: It is with regret that I follow the poisonous personal attack that I have just had to listen to. I have to say that I did not come into the House to hear debate at that level.
	I am not going to speak for long, because the main issues surrounding this debate have been well rehearsed already, but I would like to cover just a few. The Home Secretary has clearly stated that the approved pilot for an intelligence-led approach to border checks did not put national security at risk and was approved by the security services. It seems to me that pursuing an intelligence-based policy to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of border checks is a perfectly sensible starting point. Indeed, the recent Select Committee report on the UK Border Agency called for it to improve its use of intelligence, following the report of the independent chief inspector of the UKBA, John Vine—a Labour appointment—which found that the agency’s approach to the use and management of intelligence had been poor.

Julian Huppert: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of an intelligence-led approach. Does she agree that it would be a great shame if the furore around this incident meant that the UKBA did not go ahead with intelligence-based approaches, because they would make our border more secure by applying resources more efficiently?

Nicola Blackwood: I think it is important that we continue to approach intelligence-based processes rationally.
	I am not opposed to the principle of giving border officials greater discretion in assessing risk. These border officials are professionals who, for the most part, work in very difficult circumstances, and even the best policy framework cannot allow for every situation and cannot replicate the experience of a border official who has their eyes and ears fixed beadily on the individual in front of them. However, that discretion must be exercised within an evidence-based policy framework that has been set out by Ministers and properly scrutinised by Parliament. As I understand it, that was the intention of the pilot but, as we have been hearing, it was not what John Vine found was actually happening on the ground.
	We hear from whistleblowers in the UKBA that border checks were being relaxed at the request of BAA staff when queues were long. We hear from Brodie Clark that controls have been relaxed since 2008, not in favour of queue management but for a reason which he does not state. I look forward to hearing his evidence to the Select Committee. Rob Whiteman insists that Clark confessed that he had been relaxing the controls on a regular basis without ministerial approval. Most worrying from my perspective is that we find that since at least 2007—under the previous Government—agency operational instructions have contained a paragraph that apparently gives border force duty directors the authority to relax checks for health and safety reasons. That might be completely justifiable in certain extreme circumstances, but I do not think it is possible to get a proper picture of what has been going on with border checks without knowing how often these controls were relaxed on the grounds of health and safety, what criteria and processes were used to trigger such a relaxation, what the reporting mechanisms are and whether they have been properly followed. In particular, this raises the question of whether this power has been misused.
	Although I am only too aware of the potential implications of the agency’s failure to implement border checks properly, the statistics on how many people have passed through the borders during this time are truly sobering. A measure of comfort can be taken from the fact that the chief executive did take immediate action when this came to light, which has triggered full-scale parliamentary scrutiny and three independent investigations, and I hope that they will take into account ministerial decisions and, in particular, the recent claims that border checks have been relaxed to level 2 without ministerial approval or oversight since 2008. I think it highly unlikely that that would have been the agency’s response previously; I suspect we would have come up against something closer to an attitude of, “Least said, soonest mended.”
	However, when I said a “measure of comfort”, I meant a small one. The truth is that even in the relatively short time that I have been a member of the Home Affairs Committee it has become abundantly clear that
	the UK Border Agency is an organisation with deep-seated problems that date back well into the previous Government’s time in office, and an organisation that seems to have encouraged a culture of deniability. Again and again, the Committee has found that the UKBA has failed to record and account for its responsibilities. For example, when we asked for reasons for the 1,300 outstanding cases of difficulties with deporting foreign national prisoners, the agency could not account for 350 of those—it simply had not recorded the data. The agency was not able to tell the Committee how many individuals had been removed as a result of action taken by intelligence units in 2011, because the data for allegations and removals are kept on two different databases.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady is quite accurate in what she is saying about the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee, across parties. However, would she not have expected Home Office Ministers, understanding the deep-seated concerns of Members of this House, to be absolutely on top of all the detail and to ensure that they knew everything that was going on in the Department?

Nicola Blackwood: I would have hoped that they were trying to get on top of it, just as I would have hoped that Ministers in the last Government were trying to do.
	I realise that the picture is not all doom and gloom—the agency has made progress on legacy cases, as we have already heard today. There was a backlog of more than 450,000 asylum cases under the last Government, which has been reduced to 18,000, and there was a significant reduction in foreign national prisoners released without being considered for deportation, from more than 1,000 to just 28. However, those examples show just what a low base the agency was coming from, and how far it still has to go if there is any hope of its being properly capable of protecting our borders and assuring our national security.
	What worries me most about this incident as much as the facts, which are worrying in themselves, is that they are indicative of a wider cultural problem within the agency, endorsed by at least some senior officials: that short-cuts and papering over the cracks are a justifiable way of dealing with the work load, and that transparency is a concept more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
	The Select Committee will play a part in trying to get to the bottom of contradictory claims coming out of the UKBA. The three investigations will do their bit, but they will only get to the bottom of what happened when. Although we must pursue those issues vigorously, I do not believe that we will stop seeing scandals in the agency until we have genuine reform of both the systems and the culture of an organisation that we need to be able to trust with protecting our borders.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I still have 11 speakers who want to take part in this debate. Therefore, I am reducing the time limit, from the next speaker, to five minutes. Hopefully, we will get everybody in.

Paul Goggins: I regret the fact that the Home Secretary is no longer with us—

Stephen Pound: No longer in her place.

Paul Goggins: No longer in her place. She will know from the exchanges that she and I have had both inside and outside the Chamber in the 18 months that she has held office that my starting point, as a former Home Office Minister and Northern Ireland security Minister, has been to trust the Home Secretary, as, indeed, I trusted all her predecessors. We heard on Monday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who described the job as the “ministerial graveyard”. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talk earlier this afternoon about the serious responsibilities that the job has for public safety and our borders. It is my strong belief that we should not seek to second-guess difficult decisions that Home Secretaries have to take, often with advice, of course, that the rest of us do not have.
	Having said that, in the interests of protecting her own reputation and, crucially, that of her office, the Home Secretary needs urgently to clarify a number of issues. I have three specific questions. She and the Minister will remember from my question on her statement on Monday that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Indeed, when I asked her whether the pilot included that airport, she gave me three answers for the price of one: “No”, “Yes” and “Maybe”. Well, I need to know whether the pilot did in fact operate at Manchester airport, and if so how frequently checks were relaxed and how many people passed through the airport without biometric checks. I appreciate that the Minister replying today will have many other things to respond to, so a letter on those issues and questions would be very welcome.
	My second question, which has not been discussed as extensively as it needs to be, is where did the pressure for this pilot come from? I find it difficult to believe that all the pressure came from within the UK Border Agency. After all, procedures were in place for health and safety and public order emergencies, and Brodie Clark himself has confirmed that, even this summer, when the pilot was operating and there were three-hour queues at Heathrow airport, checks were still not relaxed.
	However, delays at airports damage the reputation of airports themselves and of airlines. I would therefore like the Minister to tell us whether any pressure has been applied, either on the Home Secretary or the Transport Secretary, by BAA or other airport operators—or indeed by any airline companies—to speed up passport control. Has there been any correspondence with the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary on that, or any meetings or discussions with Ministers? If there has, we should have copies of those letters and minutes.
	My third question goes to the very heart of how Ministers operate within this Government. How hands-on were the Home Secretary and her Ministers in establishing, monitoring and evaluating this pilot?
	The right hon. Lady must have been aware of the political risk she was taking in establishing the pilot. She must have been aware that the public would take some convincing that a more effective and targeted approach would include the relaxation of biometric checks. If she wants now to convince us that she is on top of the situation and has been throughout, she needs to publish all the submissions and all the other documents that relate to the pilot, including the information that was gathered during the pilot.

Jane Ellison: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the public reaction, but would he not admit that one of the things that we most commonly hear from members of the public is about using intelligence-led checks at our borders? Everyone I speak to—lots of constituents—constantly asks why we do not use a more intelligence-led approach, rather than frisking schoolchildren and so on. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The public would have every sympathy with an intelligence-led approach.

Paul Goggins: Of course the public want an intelligence-led approach, but the idea that that includes disregarding the biometric content of any passport is preposterous. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that.
	To return to my point, surely Ministers were receiving weekly updates on the pilot. Surely they were convening regular stock takes in relation to what is, after all, a highly controversial pilot. I would be particularly interested to hear from the Minister how many times decisions to implement measures beyond the routine procedures that were allowed within the pilot were escalated to the border force duty director, in line with the instructions to which we heard reference earlier.
	There was some speculation on the radio this morning that in the end both Mr Clark and the Home Secretary will be proved right. I believe that that would be the worst of all outcomes. It would show a complete disconnection between policy and operations, with claims that officials were over-interpreting what Ministers had approved, and Ministers so hands-off that they simply blame officials when things go wrong. I find it astonishing that the first the Home Secretary knew about the issue was when she was informed by the permanent secretary that disciplinary action had been instigated against Brodie Clark. If she had taken even a basic interest in the pilot, she would have known well before that that something had gone wrong. For the sake of her reputation, but more particularly for the reputation of her office, she should be as open as possible and publish all the documents that she has.

Margot James: I support the pilot scheme that was introduced in just a limited area across the European Community. I have read about the Home Secretary’s approach to this. It was first put to her back in April this year. She approached her decision with characteristic caution. She requested more information, particularly from security advisers, and she was given the all-clear by those security advisers that in the pilot, under strictly limited conditions—limited in scope and in geographical area—the UK Border Agency could relax some of the restrictions that hon. Members have already mentioned.

Gerry Sutcliffe: But if the hon. Lady is right and the Home Secretary had those concerns at the start of the pilot, the very least I would have expected the right hon. Lady to do was to say to her Immigration Minister, “Watch this, because this could cause serious problems.” Is the hon. Lady not surprised that the Home Secretary never did that?

Margot James: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe the Home Secretary did just as he suggests. It is my understanding, and I am sure that in the winding-up speech we will hear for sure, that the Home Secretary asked the Immigration Minister to keep a close eye on the operation. We should not forget that although it was put to the Home Secretary back in April, the operation did not even start till July this year. We are only in the second week of November, and it has already come to light that things have gone wrong. The media and the Opposition are a little too hasty in coming to such a swift judgment on a pilot that has barely been completed and that the Home Secretary has suspended.
	The Home Secretary then decided to allow a limited pilot to be run. It is clear from the limited information we have so far that on several occasions the head of the UK border force authorised staff to go beyond the pilot approved by Ministers. The pilot had been running for only the best part of three months, during which time excesses were agreed by managers on the ground. It might have come to light before now, but as soon as it did come to light the Home Secretary took the right decision by suspending the pilot. The decision to suspend the head of the UK border force was taken by the chief executive of the UKBA, not the Home Secretary. I fail to see why there has been such criticism of her for a decision that was taken in a proper manner by someone else.

Yasmin Qureshi: The hon. Lady says the Home Secretary did not ask for Mr Clark’s resignation, but in her statement the right hon. Lady basically blamed him for everything that went wrong. By doing so, she has prejudiced any inquiry that could be carried out. Surely it would have been better, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) suggested, to keep to the tradition of Sir Patrick Mayhew and carry out an inquiry to find out what went wrong before blaming an individual with 44 years of service at the highest level. That is why the Home Secretary is wrong.

Margot James: No one fired the individual concerned. There was a resignation following a suspension, and my understanding is that the suspension was not ordered by the Home Secretary. It was immediately instituted because the individual admitted to varying the terms of the pilot.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend has long experience in business, which she could perhaps use to compare the suspension of Mr Clark by the UKBA with the sacking, live on television, of Sharon Shoesmith by the current shadow Chancellor.

Margot James: My hon. Friend makes an insightful observation, and one that I trust Opposition Members will learn from.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose —

Margot James: I will not give way again, as many other Members wish to speak.
	I will conclude my remarks by expressing my astonishment, which I am sure many of my constituents share, that Labour Members have sought in such an opportunistic fashion to capitalise on this media storm. Have they no shame? They have proposed this motion in the aftermath of more than 10 years of open and porous borders and what was effectively an amnesty for illegal immigrants. This Government inherited a 450,000 backlog of asylum cases. The Labour party seemed to have a deliberate policy when in power to increase dramatically the number of eastern European workers coming into the country by making Britain one of only two EU member states that did not introduce transitional controls. It was an outrage when seven years ago the then Home Secretary said on television that he expected 70,000 to come from eastern Europe without introducing those transitional controls. There have been allegations that the Labour party deliberately encouraged the policy of mass immigration so as fundamentally to change British society and boost the economy in a completely unsustainable way.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Margot James: I will not give way, as my time is running out. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
	No one voted for the fundamental change brought about in our country over the past 10 years. The Labour party should be doing time for the fraud it served on the British public, rather than seizing the first media storm to challenge the new Government’s commitment to the truly Herculean task of addressing the dire straits into which our immigration system fell when Labour was in power.

Alun Michael: It really is quite breathtaking to hear Conservative Members ignore the history of the shambles that was left behind by the previous Conservative Government in 1997. We all know that this is an extremely difficult issue, and it must be taken seriously. I am sorry to say that what we have heard from Conservative Back-Benchers today is a series of partisan remarks that are remarkable in the extent of the loyalty shown to Front-Benchers, who are clearly in enormous difficulty. Loyalty is admirable, but it is not very instructive and it does not contribute to getting to the bottom of an extremely difficult issue.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Is that loyalty not also breathtaking in that it is coming from the coalition partners as well, given their record on immigration and what they did to previous Governments?

Alun Michael: Absolutely right. I am very disappointed that the Home Secretary is not still in the Chamber, because this debate is about her behaviour and performance. She was remarkably reluctant to take interventions from Labour Members during her speech. Normally on such a big issue—a big occasion in Parliament—the Minister concerned takes a lot of interventions. It was
	disappointing that she did not do so, and perhaps demonstrates her nervousness about the situation she is getting into, although she still does not seem to understand how serious her position has become.
	I want to help the Home Secretary by giving her an opportunity to correct the record. On Monday, I put a question to her in these terms:
	“we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?”
	She replied:
	“my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 52.]
	Well, I think she meant the border force, but that is what she said. We now know that statement to be untrue. The head of the border force has made it clear that he does not accept her description of what has happened, so it would be nice if the Home Secretary could correct the record on that matter.
	A further issue is the pilot. The idea that it was suspended one day early by the Home Secretary is not exactly a dramatic gesture in the direction of public concern. Apparently, the relaxation of controls was allowed everywhere under the pilot scheme—Scotland, Manchester, Northern Ireland and right across the country. That is some pilot scheme. Such an approach does not seem to indicate a calculated attempt to see exactly what is happening and evaluate it properly.

Stephen Pound: My right hon. Friend has just told the House that the pilot was extended to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary did not know that—does he?

Alun Michael: I understand that it extended to Northern Ireland, but I also understand my hon. Friend’s point because, at the beginning of the week, the Home Secretary did not seem to know whether the pilot had been extended to anywhere other than Heathrow.
	Another point is that there is one cast-iron rule at the Home Office: the need to understand that the devil is in the detail. In fact, I became quite bored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) reminding us of that on a daily basis. That was because he paid attention to the detail and expected his Ministers to do so as well. We cannot expect a Minister to know everything that officials do in their Department and its agencies, but we have the right to ask whether Ministers have asked the right questions and insisted on getting to the bottom of any important issues. During the questions and responses we have heard in the Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee throughout this week and today, that has not been demonstrated by the Home Secretary.

Dave Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any pilot scheme worth its salt must do one thing first of all: ensure that it does not put our borders at risk? Does it seem strange to him that the Government are defending what has happened on the basis that it was a pilot scheme, and that that seems to excuse people being able to get through the border system without controls?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Home Secretary had asked the questions she should have asked as a Minister, she should have been able to answer the key questions put to her on Monday and yesterday, but she was unable to do so.
	Normally, advice to Ministers would not come into the public domain, but by suspending a senior official who has a reputation as being highly committed and effective, the Home Secretary has put herself in the firing line and made it essential for all communications to be given to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asked her for that, but we did not get a positive response. It is time for the Minister for Immigration to tell us whether the Home Secretary is going to let us have the full information, without which Parliament will not be able to make a proper judgment on what went wrong. At the moment, we cannot make a judgment about whether the Home Secretary has told us the truth or whether, as Mr Clark claims, she has lied to MPs. We have to come to a judgment based on evidence, so it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to give us the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence.
	The Home Secretary knew of the Home Affairs Committee’s concerns about UKBA to which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred. In the report that we published on Friday, we said:
	“Immigration is an issue which affects the safety, the social cohesion and the economy of Britain as well as its standing on the world stage. For that reason we will continue to hold sessions with the UK Border Agency every four months or possibly even more frequently.”
	That was the level of concern. Surely the Home Secretary, who had herself been questioned repeatedly by the Select Committee, should have understood how serious the issue was and would have had herself and her Ministers all over the agency like a rash ensuring that they knew exactly what was going on.
	The Home Secretary said that she was explicit about what the pilot would cover and what it must not cover. How has muddle and misunderstanding arisen if she was so clear? We need to know. Her answers were not full and complete. Let us see all the exchanges and see what happened. Giving that information only to an internal inquiry, as she implied today, is not adequate; it needs to be given to Members of this House—to the members of the Home Affairs Committee, in particular, but also to Members of the House as a whole. The Home Secretary has a lot of questions to answer; she has gone no way towards answering them today.

Stephen Phillips: It is an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), with his considerable knowledge of the way that the Department functions. However, for me, and I hope for other Members of this House, the most disappointing feature of this debate has been that it has taken place not only in a heated atmosphere but, at times, an extremely ill-tempered one. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that he was concerned that the office of Home Secretary might be diminished by this affair. I am similarly concerned that this House has been diminished by some of the debate
	this afternoon. I say that because I think the British people are interested in three things as a result of this affair and, indeed, of their more general interest in the question of immigration—but not interested in an opportunistic fashion. I venture to suggest that this is an opportunistic motion, albeit that there have been opportunistic contributions from both sides of the House.
	First, the British people want to know precisely what has gone on. Secondly, they want an acknowledgement by politicians in all parts of the House—but particularly, if I may say so to Opposition Front Benchers, by those who formed part of the previous Administration—that something went very badly wrong with immigration in this country for a very lengthy period, as a result of which many of our constituents spent much of the last general election campaign raising immigration with us as an issue that seriously concerned them. I know that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has done this in the past in relation to aspects of the previous Government’s immigration policy, but it would do her, and those who sit with her, no harm at all to acknowledge that something went very badly wrong under the previous Government, that having an extra 2.2 million people—twice the population of Birmingham—in this country during the course of the 13 years that Labour was in power was not a good thing or something that increased community cohesion, and that real mistakes were made in relation to other areas such as establishing quotas for those from new-entry members of the European Union.
	Thirdly, our constituents want to hear about what ministerial responsibility means in the 21st century in the context of a Department that, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn made clear, is at the forefront of relations between the state and the individual, which is why it has caused such problems for so many Home Secretaries in the past.
	I was enormously pleased that the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford acknowledged, because this must be the case in the 21st century, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can know precisely what is going on in their Department. What we therefore need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, is to get to the bottom of what happened on this occasion by virtue of the inquiries that will take place, to listen to the results of the inquiries, and only then to make judgments about the conduct of the Home Secretary and her officials and advisers in the Home Office.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Stephen Phillips: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I am very glad. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems a bit surprised that he is giving way to me.
	How can we get to the bottom of the matter if it is not guaranteed that the inquiry will be published and that all the paperwork that will be provided to the inquiry from the Home Office will be published? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it should be, he should vote for our motion.

Stephen Phillips: I am not voting for the motion—let me deal with that point first—because it is entirely premature, as I have made clear. On whether the papers should be produced to the House, which is what the majority of the motion calls for, the answer is obviously no. The papers need to go before the inquiry. I have no doubt that after the inquiry has reported, a statement will be made to the House. I express no view at the moment about whether the report will be published. My view, which I will share with the hon. Gentleman, is that it ought to be published so that the House knows what it says, suitably redacted if necessary to protect the advice to Ministers that is not generally produced in this House, or indeed at all. That is necessary given the form of government that we have.
	In the time that remains to me, I will briefly answer those three questions. What happened here? There was a limited pilot that was agreed to by the Home Secretary, which meant that under limited circumstances European economic area national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index when assessed by a border force—

Alun Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Stephen Phillips: I will give way.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying what the limits were. Can he enlighten us about whether he is speaking from the Whips’ brief or whether he has seen all the exchanges and information on what limits were applied?

Stephen Phillips: I am speaking from my notes for the purposes of this speech. I am a little tired of Opposition Members intervening to make some point when I am trying to assist the House by saying what I understand the position to have been.

Alun Michael: On what basis?

Stephen Phillips: I know it in part because I read the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee, and indeed watched most of it.
	I will state what appears to have happened on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment. We do not have all of it because of the prematurity of this debate and because we have not heard Mr Brodie Clark’s side of events. Mr Clark, according to his boss, accepted that he went beyond what he was permitted to do under the terms of the pilot and what had been agreed by the Home Secretary. It was for that reason that he was suspended, not by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, but by his boss, as the Home Secretary has made perfectly clear and as his boss has confirmed, after it became apparent that the terms of the pilot had been exceeded.

Chris Bryant: I just want to correct something that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have misunderstood. He said earlier that the warnings index was still being checked for children. It was not. The document that the Home Secretary says covers her guidance expressly states:
	“We will cease routinely…checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the warnings index”.
	Those passports were never scanned.

Stephen Phillips: If I said that, I misspoke.
	My understanding is that the terms of the pilot were that children travelling in school groups or with their parents would no longer be checked. Those were the terms that were agreed. They were no broader, in many ways, than the terms of the pilots and systems that were applied by the previous Government. What gives great cause for concern is that the terms of the pilot seem to have been exceeded without reference to Ministers. It is that that the British public need to know about.
	We need to get to the bottom of this matter, forgetting the sheer opportunism and ill temper that have permeated this debate, and find out what has happened so that it does not happen again. I also think, if I may say so, that the previous Administration must recognise their faults in the area of immigration.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, but we are running out of time—interventions are taking up a lot of time—so I am going to reduce the time limit again, this time to 4 minutes from the next speaker, in the hope that Members waiting to speak can get in. Perhaps those who have already spoken could apply some discipline and not intervene.

Meg Hillier: We have heard a lot about the intricate detail of this policy, but I want to pose two key questions. First, what is the role in the Government of the Home Secretary and her Minister for Immigration? The second question concerns the Government’s overall approach to immigration policy.
	Let us wind back to the end of last year. The chief executive of the UK Border Agency announced that she would be leaving her post, and from January she took up another post in Whitehall. At that point, an acting chief executive was appointed, while several acting directors were also in post—as I understand it, some of them remain in post. Of eight posts, up to five at any one time were acting. All were operational posts—not backroom posts, but front-line operational director posts. On 26 September, the new chief executive of UKBA was appointed.
	Ministers, and the Minister for Immigration in particular, had a strong responsibility to ensure leadership and continuity at a time when there were so many acting officials. It was his responsibility, in particular, to watch the detail, to ask the questions and to set the direction. Clearly the Home Secretary had a role, but I have been a junior Minister supporting a Home Secretary, and I know that the role of a junior Minister is to look at the detail and to ensure that the Home Secretary has what she needs to do her job. So why has the Minister for Immigration been so silent? Was he reading the detail of the briefings sent to him, and was he watching the Home Secretary’s back? She is protecting him now, and he should be very grateful. The named civil servants who have been condemned publicly in the House and elsewhere have not had the same cover. In his closing remarks, will the Minister tell us what progress reports he received from officials, what action he took to ensure that the pilot, as outlined, took place and where the pitfalls were?
	Immigration is a complex project, and it needs that oversight. On the approach to immigration policy, the talk was tough. “Let’s reduce the numbers”, they said, “to tens of thousands, and let’s go back to the levels of the 1980s and early 1990s.” They wanted to create a new border force, forgetting that, actually, UKBA was, in effect, that very thing. The rhetoric on immigration and migration was great, but the actions have been weak. At the same time as all this rhetoric, the Minister for Immigration, in a little-known side move as he abolished identity cards, abandoned fingerprint biometrics in passports. The reason he was appointed to the Home Office was to abolish identity cards, but in the process, he threatened the security of the British passport and, therefore, part of our immigration system. He threw out with the bathwater the precious baby of our security.
	We have e-Borders, but only for some and only when it suits the Government. Then, let us look at the budget issues. We saw a 23% reduction in the Home Office budget, and it is naive to think that we can conduct a modern immigration service with fewer resources. I know, because I have been in such meetings in the past, that the Department for Transport, the airlines and the operators will have been putting immense pressure on the Home Office to reduce queues. However, the Home Office’s job is to maintain the integrity of security. It seems that it crumbled, but that is hardly surprising, given that it took its lead from No. 11, because, ultimately, those cuts to the budget led to a cut in service.
	The buck stops with the Minister for Immigration, the Home Secretary and, ultimately, No. 10 and No. 11. By cutting too far, too fast and at any cost, the Government have put the security of our borders at risk.

Charlie Elphicke: I had the great pleasure of inspecting the border controls at Dover and at Calais with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. We went last year, and we were shown around by Brodie Clark and his fellow officers. It was a very interesting educational journey, and we saw the hard work of the officers on the ground.
	Whatever the brickbats from Members on both sides of the House in relation to what did or did not happen in the Home Office among the high-ups and all the rest of it, we ought to pay tribute to the front-line officers at the UKBA, who do a fantastic job standing at our border, keeping watch and keeping guard come rain or shine. It is a difficult job—a very hard job—that requires a lot of experience and knowledge, and the longer they are there, the better they get at just knowing, deep down by instinct and experience, who to stop, and which lorries to stop.
	The Home Secretary’s pilot is not a bad idea. Opposition Members say that it is weakening controls, but I am not sure that that is right. It is a different method of border control, which takes a risk-based approach, and if we take such an approach we are saying that we will rely on the experience of those front-line officers to determine who should and who should not be stopped. We are relying on their intelligence and on intelligence-gathering.
	It is quite significant that, since the pilot was introduced a year or so ago, we have seen a rise in the number of illegal entrants being caught, so we should be slow to
	say, “Let’s just chuck this pilot out.” Instead, we should carefully and thoughtfully evaluate and consider it, and see whether that way of organising our border controls might actually be the best way.

Julian Sturdy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in this debate we must be careful not to become too party political, as has already happened. Is it not important to ensure that all three investigations that the Home Secretary has put in place are thoroughly undertaken, so that they can lead into what my hon. Friend is saying?

Charlie Elphicke: That is a fair point. There are several important ongoing inquiries into what happened, and they are the right thing to do. It is right that the new boss of UKBA should have the licence and ability to supervise his staff—and that includes Brodie Clark. If the new boss takes that view, and the Home Secretary endorses it, that will be the right execution of the chain of command. The House should respect that, and it should respect the need to let the inquires go through and be conducted properly. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) may not agree, and may want all the papers published on the internet immediately, but the proper processes should be followed and dealt with. We should ensure that we have the most secure borders possible, because our constituents are deeply concerned about what has gone on.
	I talk to people on the doorsteps of Dover who tell me, “I am really unhappy about the fact that we have had so many people come into this country,” and it is a matter of public record that about 2.2 million have done so. European Union citizens have in broad terms a free right of entry to come and go, but that does not apply to people outside the area.

Andrew Bridgen: Without trying to be too opportunistic, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) told the House that concerns over immigration, border controls and asylum were just “nonsense” and apparently “huff and puff” in many of the tabloid newspapers, he showed that he has no credibility on the subject—and neither do the Labour party.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and he is right. The hon. Gentleman discussed the matter in a question on the EU constitution, and in fairness I should read out his entire remarks. He said to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett):
	“The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]
	The then Home Secretary replied: “Yes, I agree entirely.” One gets a perspective from that, but I do not want to labour what is a partisan point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read out more of what he said—he did go on; indeed, he does go on—when he gets his own chance to make some remarks.
	I shall close with the concerns of my constituents. We need more controls for people from outside the European Union. The figures reported by the labour market survey
	show a total increase of 966,000 in employment between quarter 1 of 2004 and quarter 3 of 2010—that is, 966,000 people not born in the UK. UK-born employment fell by 334,000, while foreign-born UK employment rose by 1.297 million. Of those, 530,000 were born in the EU8 countries. The essential point is that the majority—800,000—were born outside those countries. We see immigration as somehow an EU problem, but there is a bigger problem with people born outside those areas—people for whom we can take controls. I hope that in time we will not only do that, but do more to make the Home Office fit for purpose, after the mess of the past 13 years.

Stephen McCabe: The issue before us today is not what Mr Brodie Clark did or did not do—although I hope that before the end of the debate we will hear from the Front Bench that the Government will put no obstacle in the way of his attending the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Today we need to focus on the arrangements for which the Home Secretary has now admitted she was responsible. She claims that she authorised a pilot to establish a risk assessment approach. It was evident from her statement to the House on Monday that she was more than a little shaky on the details of the pilot—a secret pilot—which was actually a scheme to relax border controls at every airport and port of entry in the country. From the end of July to the beginning of November, literally millions of people passed through our borders without being subject to normal controls. By her own admission, she has no idea how many drug couriers, terrorists, people traffickers or gangsters got through.
	A pilot is where we trial a new activity and assess it against the conventional approach, but the Home Secretary did it everywhere. She told us that a risk-based assessment was used, but we know that staff were advised that the measures were to deal with summer pressures. Far from being a pilot, it was a sleight of hand. She wants us to believe that the first she knew of the problem was last Thursday, but there is an operations log that is reported to the Home Office weekly. From July until September, when she authorised a further extension, she had weeks of information at her disposal. Why did she not look at it?
	The Home Secretary came to the House on Monday and attempted to deflect the blame for the fiasco on to Mr Brodie Clark. That is a smokescreen designed to blind us to her negligent and inept behaviour. She is responsible for our borders and the security of the British people. As I put to her then, her colleague the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) dispatched Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, on the basis that he was culpable for putting the security of the British public at risk. Sadly, I had to accept that the right hon. Gentleman was right; and, for exactly the same reason, his words are right today. Not only has this Home Secretary failed to protect our borders; she has sought to deflect blame, dump on others and throw a smokescreen over Parliament, rather than admitting that she is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.
	I of all people understand the efforts of Government Whips and the pressure that will be brought to bear on Tory Back Benchers today to speak up for the Home
	Secretary. I understand the sense of personal loyalty that some will feel, just as I felt it to Charles Clarke. However, if the Home Secretary cannot be relied on to protect our borders, if she cannot be relied on to give a straightforward account to Parliament and the Home Affairs Committee, if her instinct is to blame others when she is caught red handed, and if she puts fear of queues above fear of terrorists, then she is no longer fit for this great office and she should go now with dignity. She can make a clean break today and agree to make available all the information requested in the motion, or we can prise the details out a bit at a time. I doubt that it will save her. I call on her to do the decent thing. This House is good at persuading people to do the right thing. She should do it now.

Dominic Raab: Since coming to office, the Government have initiated a series of reforms to try to get a grip on the chaos they inherited, such as the cap on non-EU migration, the crackdown on abuses of the student visa system, the accreditation for colleges and the focus on the family route. However, we need to be clear about the size of the task we face after 13 years of open-door immigration, because under the previous Government, as much as Labour Members huff and puff, net migration was more than 2 million.

Dave Watts: That is not the issue!

Dominic Raab: It is the issue, and we will come to why.
	The lack of control under the previous Government was illustrated by periodic catastrophes. They could be dismissed as one-offs—I am sure that that is the intention of Labour Members—but this Government inherited serial, systematic failings that they must clean up. Under the previous Government, the Home Office ignored warnings that visa claims were being backed by forged documents; 1,000 foreign prisoners were released and not considered for deportation; illegal immigrants were cleaning the Home Office; and 12 illegal workers were given security jobs in the Metropolitan police, one of whom guarded the site where the Prime Minister’s car was parked.

Karl Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Raab: I will not give way, because of the time.
	We know from Brodie Clark that the relaxation of current checks dates back to 2008. One obvious question is whether the former Home Secretary—the former right hon. Member for Redditch—knew about or authorised the relaxation at that time. That is the institutional context and the legacy that the Government inherited.
	I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement on Monday. One thing remains clear: we still have a long way to go to repair the inherited fractures in our border controls. The big picture, however, is that the Government are dealing with the operational strains that result from the strategic error of one Labour Home Secretary, who said that he could see no obvious upper limit on net migration to this country, being compounded by another who confessed that the UKBA was not fit for purpose but
	failed to clean up the mess. There are unanswered questions and we need to get to the bottom of each one—that is why three reviews are in place—but we need right answers, not rushed ones.
	The motion is so patently a fishing expedition to find something—anything—that might cause political embarrassment. It has little to do with sound public policy; it is all about cheap politics. The net is cast so widely as to be deeply irresponsible on security and the burden on officials, who are working hard to rectify the mistakes that have been made. To demand the publication of every item of official advice and every record of exchange would have a chilling effect on the candour and flow of advice to Ministers. The risk is more of the informal advice and sofa government that we had under the previous Government.
	Opposition Members cannot on the one hand cry that Ministers are exposing officials to the harsh glare of media limelight and on the other ask for every official utterance immediately to be released to the public. Things might be different if the shadow Home Secretary were asking specific, focused questions, but she is not. It is irresponsible to ask officials to drain the swamp in search of vignettes for Labour party press releases.
	Frankly, the motion trivialises an important debate and the serious scrutiny that the House should exert. All hon. Members should be seriously concerned about the recent failings at the UKBA, but no hon. Member who is concerned could credibly vote for the motion.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is right that many questions remain unanswered. That is why it was good to have the Home Secretary before the Select Committee on Home Affairs yesterday to answer questions for more than an hour on this important issue.
	It is right that we should have this debate today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described it as an ill-tempered debate, but I have been a Member of the House for 24 years, and no debate on immigration is not noisy, because these are controversial matters. It is right that the House should look at what the Home Secretary has done. Yesterday, she took absolute ownership of the pilot scheme and made it very clear to members of the Committee that anything beyond that was the responsibility of Brodie Clark.
	In the few minutes I have available, I should like to update the House on what the Committee will do in respect of the inquiry. Of course, there will be an independent inquiry set up by the Home Secretary and led by John Vine. The Committee rates John Vine, who has done a terrific amount of good work. In a sense, we wonder what would have happened had he not turned up last week at that terminal in London to find out what was going on. We would certainly not be having this debate today. The fact that he is conducting the inquiry is therefore welcome. I am not absolutely certain that there is a need for two other internal inquiries, but I will go along with the Home Secretary on that. If she feels that they will be useful, let us hear what they have to say.
	On Tuesday, the Select Committee will hear from Brodie Clark. I am extremely grateful to him for responding so readily to our invitation to come and speak to us. He
	has made it clear that he will not make any statements outside the Select Committee hearing or give any newspaper interviews until he has had the opportunity to answer questions from members of the Committee. As what he said yesterday was basically in direct contradiction to what the Home Secretary said, it is important that we hear the views of all sides before coming to a conclusion. We have also asked Rob Whiteman, the new chief executive of the UKBA, to give evidence to the Committee, and when the Immigration Minister gets back to the Home Office, he will see a letter from me inviting him to give evidence to the Committee as well. It is important that he should have an opportunity to tell us what was happening on a day-to-day basis.
	The Select Committee has a long record, under successive Governments, of producing reports on the UK Border Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) will remember that we also criticised the agency’s operation when he was Home Secretary. The key thing is that, when recommendations are made, they should be implemented. That is why I was heartened to hear what the Home Secretary said about the need for the UKBA to change. This has been a crisis, and it will not be resolved until we have all the answers, but she should use it as an opportunity to look at the organisation. It has been fundamentally flawed for a number of years. I do not go back to the crucifixion, as some hon. Members have done; I go back only to 1987. The agency has been flawed since the day I entered Parliament and discovered, during my very first campaign, that there were bags and bags of unopened mail. It is very important to see what is happening today in that context, and to ensure that we make the necessary changes. All that we ask in the Select Committee is that our witnesses are open and transparent, and that they give us the answers so that we can prepare a good, timely report for the House.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have been a Member of this House for 17 years—five years in opposition, 12 years in government—and I have been privileged to be a Minister in various Departments. Which was the most toxic Department? The Home Office, for the reasons that have already been given by former Home Secretaries and former Home Office Ministers. I am an ex-Minister in the Home Office, and it beggars belief that the Immigration Minister did not follow this matter through in the way we would expect. There has been a major change to a flagship policy. Immigration and counter-terrorism have been strong policies that, as the Prime Minister has often said, are at the heart of the Government’s response. They have been flagship policies because we need to keep our borders safe and secure, but it has been accepted that there has been a change of policy in the guidance. We have now been told by the Home Secretary that Ministers did not see what was happening. I cannot believe that, but the Immigration Minister will have an opportunity to respond and tell us exactly what did go on—or will he?
	I have been around here for 17 years, as I said, and I spent three of those in the Whips Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) will also recognise the Whips’ operation in action. Most of the Conservative Back Benchers who
	have spoken today have not talked about the issue concerning the Home Secretary; they have talked about immigration policy and the differences between us in that regard. That is their fault, in the sense that they turned immigration into an election issue. They said that they would reduce the amount of immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament, but that is not going to happen, because the Government are hitting the problems that all Governments face because of the complexity of the issues. None the less, we will have debates on immigration and on who was at fault.
	This is also about the role of the Home Secretary in dealing with members of staff. It was appalling that she attacked Mr Brodie Clark in the way that she did on Monday. People should be given the opportunity to make their case. It is right that we have the inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee and the other inquiries, but the questions that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asked need to be answered. The answers need to be in the public domain, because it is grossly unfair for somebody to be criticised and castigated as Mr Clark was without having the opportunity to reply. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, said, Mr Clark will have his day in court; and he will win, because what the Home Secretary did was constructive dismissal.
	The debate will end with Government Back Benchers being loyal and the Government carrying the day. The good news for the British public is that the affair will not end today; it will continue. The truth will out. It is never good to see Ministers having to resign after holding on to power for as long as they can, as the Defence Secretary did recently. The Home Secretary should do the honourable thing and resign. The security and safety of our borders is paramount for Government.

Stephen Pound: It is always far easier to find a scapegoat than it is to find a solution, and we have heard some scapegoating this afternoon. We have heard scapegoating of individuals in the Home Office and we have heard scapegoating of the past. Even the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), normally such a seraphim of sweetness and light in the Chamber, tried to introduce the suggestion that the previous Administration had an amnesty for asylum seekers. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that at the last election only one party stood in favour of a “keep your head down and everything will be all right” amnesty: the Liberal Democrats, with the mendacious mush of pusillanimity that ended with them swallowing their principles and their pride and selling their souls to the Conservatives.
	It is no good to scapegoat the Home Office as some evil organism that takes the good and the innocent, and corrupts, kills and throws them out again, like the reactor room of K-19—the infamous Russian nuclear submarine from which no one ever emerged alive. That is not the situation.
	We have an intensely difficult problem, dealing with human beings prepared to risk their lives, and in many cases to lose their lives, to come to this country. Any
	amount of legislation or fine theory comes up against the fact that some young lad from Afghanistan will hang on under a lorry, even though he has a 60% chance of dying, to come to this country.
	We are dealing with people for whom the situation is in that order of seriousness, so we should grow up and stop going for the stupid false nostrum that we can pull a wall around this country, even around the forgotten frontier that stretches from Foyle through Belfast lough to Strangford. We cannot build a wall around the United Kingdom—[ Interruption. ] I appreciate that some may wish to do so, but it is not physically possible.
	This summer, Raed Salah, a man banned from this country by the Home Secretary, wandered in through customs with a cheery wave and a tip of his hat—I was going to say that he stopped off at the duty-free, but he probably did not. The current structure is indefensible. How on earth can we possibly justify it?
	I end with one positive thought. I speak not for my party on this; in fact, I think I may have more in common with the Home Secretary. Is it not time for us to revisit one of the sanest, most sensible, positive and productive proposals ever heard on the Floor of the House? Identity cards. Is it not time that we looked again at those proposals? Otherwise, we shall never know how many people entered the country this summer until they either rock up in MPs’ surgeries, claiming that their overstay should be regularised, or appear in court. When they are asked how they came into the country, they will reply that it was during those sweet balmy days of summer when people could wander in and nobody said a word. The way to find out is to be like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who carries his ID card in his wallet to this day. As does he, so should the nation.

Chris Bryant: There have been many striking things this afternoon. The most striking one at the beginning was how few members of the Cabinet came to offer their support to the Home Secretary. I have been in this Chamber on many occasions when people have called for a resignation. I have nearly always on those previous occasions seen at least half the Cabinet present. I presume that she does not have much longer in light of the support from her colleagues.
	There have been a great many contributions. I think I am correct in saying that we have heard from three members of the Home Affairs Committee—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), although I know she is unable to join us now, and, of course, the much-respected Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also heard from a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
	We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I must say that when he said he thought the Labour party should have taken a humility pill, I thought that was—well, talk about “pot” “kettle” “yellow”! The Liberal Democrats should be swallowing a humility pill in respect of a whole load of things at the moment—but I think we will leave that to the electorate.
	Other contributors were my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael); my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab); and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).
	All spoke and made interesting contributions, but what have we learned today? First of all, we have learned that the Home Secretary experimented with lowering our border controls—and unlike the Home Secretary, who made up her contribution, I am not making this up—in the year before the Olympics. She chose to experiment with border controls in the year before the Olympics!
	Secondly, we learned that the Home Secretary did not even know what she agreed to in the first place. We saw that classically on Monday afternoon, when Members asked whether the experiment applied to Manchester airport, to Glasgow or to Belfast, and she did not know. She did not have the faintest idea; she was completely clueless. She still does not know today how, where or when her experiment with our border controls was applied. Even after days and days of this issue being the main one in the media, she has not chosen to brief herself to find out how it was applied.
	The one member of the Cabinet who was here to provide his paltry support was the Secretary of State for Education. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I forgot about the Secretary of State for Wales, because we always do. We have heard that this was a pilot, but I would have thought that a pilot would be introduced in just one airport to see how it worked out, not become an experiment in changing the whole policy on our border controls across every single airport and port of entry into this country. This was no pilot; it was a change of policy.
	We have also learned that the Home Secretary extended the experiment for a couple of extra months without even getting a view from the front line on how it was operating. It was only because Sir John Vine happened to go along to Heathrow that we were able to find out exactly what was happening. [Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that Ministers cannot be expected to do inspections, yet we heard from the hon. Member for Dover that at least he has been able to go and visit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman went, but the Minister did not bother.

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.
	We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.
	We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

Stephen Phillips: The pilot caught an extra 10% of illegal immigrants who were trying to enter the country, so why was it not a good idea?

Chris Bryant: It is interesting, is it not, that the only pieces of data that Government Members can come up with are the pieces of data that they think will help their argument. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the House to have data, let him publish the whole set of data, so that we can know exactly how successful or unsuccessful the operation was. He may wish to present a private Member’s Bill next year, in which case I look forward to seeing how many Government Members support him.
	What have we seen in the country, though? One person from the neighbouring constituency of Cynon Valley contacted me, having arrived at Heathrow in the summer. He said that
	“all those with biometric passports were called up and just waved through”.
	That is precisely the opposite of what Ministers have been saying. I also have a piece of paper from the chief operating officer at Heathrow, who writes:
	“Within the passenger environment the highest risk currently at Heathrow is the onset of the student season, which brings with it large numbers of people”.
	She goes on to explain how she and her colleagues will be dealing with that. It is, of course, one of the main issues with which the Minister for Immigration is meant to be dealing. The chief operation officer writes:
	“We have a number of ways of mitigating that risk, and these are now in place: use of Level 2 measures”—
	in other words, the lighter touch—
	“with the opportunity to use additional measures where required”.
	That flies directly in the face of everything that the Home Secretary has been saying, and everything that the Minister has been saying.
	We also know that some operations were suspended which the Home Secretary says were not. On Monday afternoon, she said:
	“First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 45.]
	That is her basic defence. Yet the very document that she says reflects her policy states:
	“We will cease…Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings Index”.
	Those children’s passports were not swiped. The warnings index was not involved. That is directly contrary to what the Home Secretary said on Monday.
	As for the Immigration Minister, who has been notable by his absence over the last few days, I think the whole House would agree that he is a nice man. I myself would argue that he is nicer than his politics. However, the fact remains that he has been completely absent. I should have thought that an interventionist Minister—
	[Interruption.] 
	Will he calm down? I should have thought that an interventionist Minister who wanted to introduce a new policy on border controls and had organised an experiment would be ringing up members of staff at Heathrow, Gatwick and Calais to find out exactly what was happening. In my view, the Minister has been so hands-off that much of this problem is directly his fault.
	I note that this afternoon, when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked on eight separate occasions whether any Minister other than the Home Secretary had sanctioned the extension to further areas, the spokesman expressly chose not to answer the question. I suspect that that is because it was the Immigration Minister himself who gave a further sanction to the extension of the regime.
	Government Members would love to talk about anything other than the fact that what has happened is due to two decisions that were made on their watch: the decision to cut the number of staff in the border force by 886 this year and by 1,552 by the time of the next general election, and the decision to suspend some border controls throughout the summer. This was not a pilot; it was a change of policy. It has blown up in the Home Secretary’s face, and she simply has not the decency to own up.
	All that my constituents want to know is this: did anyone dangerous or criminal enter the country this summer at a port or airport near them? Sadly, we will not know the answer unless the Government do what our motion calls on them to do and publish the facts in black and white.

Damian Green: This is a serious subject, which deserves serious contributions. Sadly, the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has just characteristically walked the line between opportunism and hypocrisy, as he so often does, believing apparently—[Interruption.] He apparently believes—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure the Minister was not making any personal comment as to integrity or behaviour, but he might wish to rephrase his remarks.

Damian Green: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Damian Green: No. I chose my words very carefully, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have no intention of withdrawing them because they are the truth. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not need to shout to say the truth. It is a shame that he adopted the attitude that he did, because this is a very serious issue, but it is not surprising given some of the other contributions from Opposition Members, which, unfortunately, attempted to blame the fall of the Berlin wall, my noble friend Lord Howard and the late Lord Whitelaw for problems in the current immigration system, not recognising for a second how much their Government weakened border controls. We heard no recognition of how their Government allowed warnings index checks to be suspended on EEA children and adults, no
	recognition of how their Government threw open the border at Heathrow, and no recognition of their uncontrolled immigration policy that allowed net migration to this country of 2.2 million. There is only one phrase the British people need to hear from the Labour party on immigration, and that is, “Sorry—sorry we left such a mess.”
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out in detail once again for the House the exact nature of the pilot that she and I authorised to target investigative resources on intelligence-led checks. The shadow Immigration Minister said he assumed that I had authorised the unauthorised extensions. I am happy to be able to assure him and the House that I did not. Under the pilot, instead of always checking children travelling with their parents and in school groups against the warnings index of terrorists and serious criminals, and instead of always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport, in limited and specific circumstances border force officers would have been able to use intelligence and operational judgment to decide which children to check against the warnings index and on which adults to open the second paragraph.

Russell Brown: The Home Secretary talked about risks. I have been in correspondence with the Minister and the Home Secretary, and we disagree about the internal port at Stranraer and Cairnryan. Following the withdrawing of UKBA funding there, people arrive—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] People arrive there, they are illegal and they are identified by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. Arrangements are then made with—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. If Members rise to intervene, they should make an intervention, not deliver a short lecture. I call the Minister.

Damian Green: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about the Larne and Stranraer issue, but it is not an international port. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; boats that come from Northern Ireland to Scotland are not crossing an international boundary. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise.
	The pilot was designed to improve security at our ports and to strengthen our border. Several Opposition Members said they believed that it was not being monitored and that no information was being passed to the Home Secretary or me during the course of the pilot, but of course that was not the case. We were getting regular information from management about what was happening, and it was telling us that there was a 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants, a 48% increase in fraudulent documents detected, and that cocaine seizures and illegal firearms seizures were up.

Yvette Cooper: rose —

Damian Green: Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, will she answer the following question? If the figures for the pilot had gone the other way—if detections were down, the number of fraudulent documents detected were down, and drug seizures were down—would she not be calling for a debate to argue that the pilot was a failure? Why is she calling a debate now when, as far as we can see, this pilot was a success?

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman’s pilot was such a success, he will need to explain why he has now suspended it. There is an important question that the Home Secretary ducked earlier about the management data that were available—I refer to the information about how many times the checks were downgraded to level 2. How many times did that take place over the summer? Has the Minister seen that information? If so, will he publish it? We know that the information exists.

Damian Green: That is precisely the information that the various investigations are looking at, but what the right hon. Lady has to recognise is that, without the authorisation of Ministers, senior UK border officials are alleged to have ordered the regular relaxation of border checks. They also went beyond the pilot that Ministers had agreed. Biometric checks on European economic area nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without approval, and adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without approval.
	What the pilot was designed to do—I hope that there will be some consensus on this across the House—was to have a risk-based approach. I say that there should be some consensus, because having a proper risk-based approach to immigration control has been the basis of our policy on both immigration and wider security since 9/11. I was grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on that point. It is obviously sensible to concentrate our effort and resources in those areas where they are likely to have most effect on making our borders safe. I cannot believe that there is a Member in any part of this House who disagrees with that. That is what we approved.
	On the point about queues which was raised by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), there is of course permanent pressure for shorter queues; there is pressure from Members of this House. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that whenever I come back in the autumn—I suspect this was the case for any previous Immigration Minister—I hear tales of woe about queues at Heathrow, but it is absolutely the first responsibility of the Home Office to make sure that we do not compromise security. That is what this pilot—that is what a risk-based approach—is designed to do.
	What happened that went beyond authority was that the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped on regular occasions, without approval.

William McCrea: rose—

Damian Green: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
	Let me quote what Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UKBA, said:
	“Brodie Clark admitted to me on 2 November that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than Ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

Toby Perkins: rose—

Damian Green: Do sit down; you have not been in the debate.
	If Brodie Clark had not admitted that to his immediate superior, he would not have been suspended. That is why he was suspended.
	Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members. The serious point that the shadow Home Secretary made was about staffing cuts, so let me quote for her from the UKBA business plan produced at the end of the previous Government’s term in office. This was her Government’s policy, and it says:
	“Our workforce projections indicate that there will no longer be a business need for the same number of staff in certain locations by the end of March 2011…within Border Force it is imperative that frontline services are maintained but changes to the way we work mean that this will be achievable with targeted reduction across the grade range.”
	In other words, the previous Government were planning to reorder the way the border force works so that it could be effective with fewer people. That is why I said that the hon. Member for Rhondda was walking the line between opportunism and hypocrisy—I was not referring to him personally at all.
	Indeed, my predecessor, Phil Woolas, said:
	“Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.”––[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 5.]
	That is what Labour’s last Immigration Minister said, and I agree with him. It is pretty disgraceful that his successors are now attempting to say that it is somehow improper to follow that example.
	For many years, the UKBA has needed to be reformed. We have reversed Labour’s open-door immigration policy; we have capped economic migration; we have clamped down on student visas; we have restricted family migration; and we are breaking the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement.

Chris Bryant: rose —

Damian Green: I will give way once, to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful. The one thing that neither of the Ministers has revealed today is what will be published at the end of these inquiries. On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State changed her original date for producing the inquiries—by January—to the end of January. What exactly are the Government going to publish? Will they publish all the important decisions—obviously, with the redactions that were referred to earlier—so that we can see in black and white precisely what they sanctioned?

Damian Green: Obviously, all the relevant papers will go to the inquiries, and it is for John Vine, who is an independent inspector, to decide what he should publish. That seems to me the sensible way to do it. If there is an independent inspector holding an independent inquiry, it is not for me to tell him what to do.
	For the first time in 15 years, we have a Government who are willing and able to deliver a controlled immigration system. Because of the shambles we inherited, it will take longer than I, this House or the British people
	would want, but we will improve the UKBA, we are bringing immigration under control and, unlike the Labour party, we will continue to take immigration as seriously as the British people do. This is a shameful motion promoted by a shameless party, and I urge the House to reject it.

Question put
	The House divided:
	Ayes 247, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.

Youth Unemployment

Liam Byrne: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Government’s policies of cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast have resulted in the UK economy flat-lining for 12 months, well before the recent Eurozone crisis; notes that unemployment has reached a 17-year high and youth unemployment has hit a record level of 991,000; further notes that slower growth and higher unemployment makes it harder to get the deficit down and that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts £46 billion more borrowing than the Government planned; further believes that with long-term youth unemployment up by 64 per cent. since January 2011 it was a mistake to abolish the Future Jobs Fund and urgent action is now required to stop a generation of young people being lost to worklessness; agrees with the IMF’s warning that ‘consolidating too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects’ and that the Government should have ‘a heightened readiness to respond, particularly if it looks like the economy is headed for a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment’; and calls on the Government to adopt the Opposition’s five point plan for jobs which includes using funds raised from a tax on bank bonuses to guarantee a job for 100,000 young people and build 25,000 affordable homes, bringing forward long-term investment projects, temporarily reversing January’s VAT rise, a one-year cut in VAT to five per cent. on home improvements and a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm which takes on extra workers.
	I am glad to have the opportunity to open this Opposition day debate on youth unemployment, but sad not to see the Secretary of State in his place on the Treasury Bench. This is the second such debate we have had on youth unemployment, and it is the second such debate in which the Secretary of State has not been in the Chamber to present the Government’s argument. I am glad we have the opportunity to debate the motion today because next week we will see figures that could show youth unemployment has risen above 1 million, but I hope that it will come down. Today we have a chance to force the Government to come to the House to explain their complete failure to address the crisis now unfolding in almost every community in this country: the crisis of youth unemployment and the re-emergence of scars that we thought had gone from communities, never to return.
	When we debated this issue in February, we heard some pretty complacent arguments from Treasury Front Benchers. Indeed, we had the spectacle of a Minister trying to blame the rise in youth unemployment unfolding on his watch on what happened five years ago. I hope we do not have that spectacle again this afternoon, because it is about time that the Government had the guts to take responsibility for their decisions.
	In the past few weeks, the chorus of voices raising the alarm about youth unemployment has grown loud and wide. Yesterday, the Trades Union Congress confirmed that youth unemployment has now risen in 97% of communities. Last Friday, the Work Foundation urged Ministers to take urgent action to help the lost generation or risk a crisis in Britain’s communities. Last week, the CBI said:
	“youth unemployment presents a specific and urgent challenge.”
	Last month, the chief executive of the Prince’s Trust said that the number of unemployed young people is now twice the size of the population of Manchester and:
	“If we fail to tackle youth unemployment now, we risk losing this talent forever which would be a tragedy.”
	My constituency has the highest level of youth unemployment in the country, and throughout the summer residents have been telling me that we have got to do more to help our young people—people like Deborah Gillespie from Shard End who said:
	“I’ve been looking since June for a job for my 16 year old. No jobs for him! He is a hard-worker. No-one will give him a chance.”
	One of her neighbours has said:
	“As I am an older person, I must say I do feel sorry for out-of-work youth. My own 24-year-old is out on the dole. They lose what little self-respect they once had.”
	When I asked what young people needed, my constituents’ answer was pretty straightforward: work and to help them feel worthy. I know that what my constituents have been saying to me will have been echoed in constituencies around the country.

Robert Halfon: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why youth unemployment increased by hundreds of thousands when the previous Government were in office?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am familiar with his constituency because it is where I grew up. What his constituents want to know is what this Government are doing about the rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency. I hope that he will use the opportunity of this debate to press his Front Benchers to do more for some of the young people in his constituency, such as those with whom I grew up.

Andrew Percy: I thank the Minister for giving way—[ Interruption. ] He is now a shadow Minister and will probably never be a Minister again—[Hon. Members: “ Oooh!”] Well, I talk to my electorate and that is what they are telling me. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that we must do more about youth unemployment, the fact is that is was under his Government, from 2000 onwards, that the trend started to rise, and it was under his Government that the gap between the top 10 and bottom 10 performing schools, one of which I was teaching at for a number of years, increased. This is not something that can be laid at the door of any particular Government; it has been happening for a considerable time.

Liam Byrne: What the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to know is what the Government are going to do about the crisis of youth unemployment unfolding in constituencies—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. For goodness’ sake, I am losing my voice. Mr Browne, you will not stand at the Bar and shout across the Chamber. Thank you.

Liam Byrne: What the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to know is what this Government are doing for unemployed people in his constituency now. He might like to live in the past; his constituents want to know what he is doing for them today.

Henry Smith: One of the things this Government can do, and are doing, is to provide more apprenticeship places. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I do, the 70% rise in apprenticeship places in Crawley that has just been announced?

Liam Byrne: That is such an important point that we will dwell on it at length shortly.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend please ignore Government Members? They are in denial about what is happening to young people in this country. Young people are always the ones to suffer most in a recession. Does he agree that outside some parts of London and the south-east, we are in recession? We are in recession in Huddersfield and in his constituency, and we have to do something about it, but the Government are doing nothing.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	Under the Labour Administration, youth unemployment was 300,000 lower on average than under this Government today, even while the economy is supposed to be in recovery.

Angie Bray: I recall writing a letter to my local newspaper in November 2009 berating the then Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman served, for a 59% rise in the latest unemployment figures. Although he does not want to talk about history, does he accept that context is very important and that his own Government had a lot to answer for in relation to youth unemployment?

Liam Byrne: Let me remind the hon. Lady that under the previous Government, even at a time of recession, youth unemployment and long-term youth unemployment were coming down. That is because in the face of a crisis we chose to act. The question that she has to answer—

Marcus Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: I might finish responding to the hon. Lady first.
	The question that the hon. Lady has to answer for her constituents is why under Labour, even in recession, youth unemployment was coming down by 38%, and now, over the course of this year, long-term unemployment is up by 68%—on her Government’s watch. What is she going to say to those on the Treasury Bench about what further action they must take?

Marcus Jones: The right hon. Gentleman tells us how well the previous, Labour Government did on youth unemployment, but that is not how the figures look to me. From 2004, youth unemployment was rising, and when the Labour Government left office it was higher than when they took office in 1997. How does he work that one out?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is an astute observer of current affairs, and he will have noticed that the worst international financial recession was under way—

Marcus Jones: rose —

Liam Byrne: Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will know that the worst global recession since the 1920s was under way, yet despite that, before the election, youth unemployment was coming down. He must answer this question: how is it that this Government are doing so well, when since the beginning of this year long-term youth unemployment has risen
	by 68%? Hundreds of constituencies around the country have seen long-term youth unemployment double. If he has the right plan, can he explain exactly what is going so well?

Graham Stuart: As we know, the scar of unemployment on young people lasts through their lifetime; it has a tremendously negative impact. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is getting the tone of this debate correct. In truth, in the years of economic boom on his watch, youth unemployment stayed resolutely high before peaking and rising following the crisis. We need to look at what we can do better to understand the youth employment market. He must at least acknowledge the steps that this Government are taking on training and apprenticeships. It may not be enough, but let us not use this as a party political football; let us try to be constructive.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful, at last, for a consensual note. [ Laughter. ] The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends might laugh, but the fact that long-term youth unemployment in his constituency is up by 48% this year is not a laughing matter. This debate is an opportunity for us to interrogate this Government on what they are doing to get youth unemployment down and how, ahead of the autumn statement, they should negotiate with the Chancellor for more resources to get our young people back to work.

John Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost one in seven young people in Rotherham are looking for work and out of a job? It is one of the 10 worst-hit areas since this Government came to office. The question that people are asking is how much worse this waste of talent has to get before the Government are shaken out of their complacency, accept that what they are doing is not working and change course.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend has experience of this matter at the sharp end. Long-term youth unemployment in his constituency is up by 78% this year. I know what a difference programmes such as the future jobs fund made in his constituency. That is why it is such a tragedy that before the evaluation was in, this Government chose to cancel the project. That is why this debate is so important.
	The Opposition do not believe in half measures when it comes to getting young people into work. At the end of the recession, youth unemployment was down by 38%. A year and a half into the recovery, youth unemployment is up. This year, long-term youth unemployment is up by 64%. When we were confronted by the great increase in youth unemployment, we did not stand idle but did something about it. The future jobs fund worked because it helped to create 100,000 opportunities for young people all over the country. When we met to debate this matter in February, the jury was still out on the results. We now have the Department’s own evaluation and the judgment is categorical:
	“for many participants their reported experiences had been to such a high standard, that they could not think of any improvements to the scheme.”
	The Government cancelled it anyway.

Meg Hillier: In my constituency, unemployment among 20 to 24 year olds is now at nearly a quarter. Members across the House should be alert to the cohort challenge, because a whole cohort of graduates is being hit hard. The unemployment rate for new graduates in the third quarter of 2010, according to the Office for National Statistics, was 20%. One in five recent graduates who are economically active and looking for work is unable to find it. That is almost double the rate from the start of the recession, which was 10.6%.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which echoes that made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). We know that if people are out of work when they are young, they are more likely to be low paid in the course of their career, more likely to suffer ill health and more likely to be unemployed again. That is why the Prince’s Trust and others are right to focus their attention on the crisis of youth unemployment that is unfolding in our country.

Jim Shannon: Not only is there the spectre of unemployment and the prospect of no jobs, but many of the young people who are not in education, employment or training are under medical supervision. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost 30% of the young people who are unemployed are facing depression and are suicidal? Does he feel that we have to address that issue along with unemployment?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point, which I hope he will develop in the course of the debate.
	When this Government were first in office, at a time when the economy was fragile, when the recovery was in its first stages, when they were launching the biggest programme of Government cuts for many years, and when there was a risk of rising unemployment, as was made obvious by the Office for Budget Responsibility, they chose, at huge expense, to take out the key back-to-work programmes that we had in place, which were keeping unemployment down. That will stand as one of the worst judgments made by this Administration.
	I know that the Government will in a moment protest that they are taking action. The Secretary of State, who is not here today, reeled off a list of programmes at Question Time last month, when he said that there are
	“work clubs, work experience, apprenticeship offers, sector-based work academies, the innovation fund, European social fund support,”—
	it is nice to see the Secretary of State supporting Europe on something—
	“the skills offer, the access to apprenticeships programme, Work Together, the Work programme, Work Choice, mandatory work activity and Jobcentre Plus.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 4.]
	It is not clear how Jobcentre Plus is an innovation of this Government, but none the less it earned a place in his list.
	The only problem is that none of these programmes is making a blind bit of difference, so let us take some of the key measures one by one. I want to start with the flagship package of measures launched last May. So important was it, so pregnant with opportunity, so sure
	was it to make a difference, that the Deputy Prime Minister himself was allowed to put out the press release. Those measures came replete with a total budget of £60 million over three years—a grand total of £20 for every unemployed young person. Or we could look at it as 5p a day to help—

Chris Grayling: rose—

Liam Byrne: I shall give way in a moment, because I would like some questions answered.
	That is 5p a day to help workless young people. In total, the scheme costs less than the Department spends on stationery—what an insult! Will the Minister tell us how many people the Government have got back into work? Just give us the number.

Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that the measures announced in May were for 16 to 18-year-olds? He is misrepresenting the statistics. Will he also acknowledge to the House that his Government provided no support to 16 to 18-year-olds?

Liam Byrne: This is the Minister whom the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority once wrote to about his casual use of statistics, so I shall take no lessons from him about statistics traded across the Dispatch Box.

Lorely Burt: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise me on the future jobs fund, which he heralds as a great creator of opportunities? Owing to EU rules on wage subsidy claims, posts offered had to be newly created; they could not be normal vacancies. How many young people got real, permanent jobs out of the future jobs fund?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Lady need only look at the statistics, including those for her area. This year, long-term youth unemployment has risen by one third in Solihull. The future jobs fund was helping to bring youth unemployment down. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), we have to help young people stay close to the labour market because if we let them drift into long-term unemployment, they have a bigger chance of being unemployed in the future, of being low-paid and of drifting into ill-health. That is why the right decision for her constituents, as well as mine, is not to do nothing, but to act.

Richard Fuller: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question from my colleague, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). We are fooling ourselves, if we think that this problem is simply to do with this Government or the previous one. This is a long-term, growing problem of youth unemployment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) is looking for the statistics for my constituency. I can tell him: it is up 24%. As we look for solutions and as economies across Europe are being destroyed because of their excessive debt, my question is: what can we do that does not incur additional debt for the Government? Will he support our schools reforms? Will he support our efforts on apprenticeships? Will he support the reductions in taxation and regulation on small businesses indicated by the Government?

Liam Byrne: Long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is up this year by 133%. That is a serious increase. I am happy to share with him the figures produced for us yesterday by the House of Commons Library. Those statistics speak to one key point: we need action to get youth unemployment down, and we need it now.

Paul Maynard: In my constituency, the figure is 36% year on year. I was delighted to read in The Times today the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred on long-term youth unemployment. I made the point of getting the figures from the House of Commons Library, so that I could see what the figure was in my seat. Is he aware that in 235 constituencies, youth unemployment, by the measure that he requested, has fallen since May 2010, and that in a further 41 constituencies, it has remained static?

Liam Byrne: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the figures in his constituency. Long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has risen by 233%, and that is an extraordinary increase, but surely he will agree with the judgment of the TUC, the CBI and the Prince’s Trust that now is the time for urgent action to get young people back to work, including young people in his constituency.

Paul Maynard: As the right hon. Gentleman has again mentioned my constituency, I note that according to the Library the unemployment figures rose from 75 in May 2010 to 100 in September 2011. I represent a coastal community. Has he ever heard of seasonal unemployment?

Liam Byrne: The figures are seasonally adjusted, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but surely he is not saying to the House and to his constituents that he is seriously relaxed about the rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency. I simply do not believe that that is his position.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Liam Byrne: I will give way to hon. Members in a moment, but first I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

David Winnick: The reality on the ground in my constituency is, I am sure, the same as that in many other parts of the west midlands and the black country. In my constituency, a store opened recently with 20 vacancies, and I wonder how many Government Members are able to tell us how many people applied for those 20 vacancies. I shall tell the House how many: 500. That is the reality: people desperate for work—and denied it by this Government.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend speaks with some passion, because he is right. We cannot tolerate any longer a situation in which long-term youth unemployment continues to rise at today’s pace.

Nick de Bois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: I shall, because the rise in long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is three times the size of the rise in mine.

Nick de Bois: If the right hon. Gentleman is as interested as I am in developing sustainable long-term jobs to deal with youth unemployment in particular, does he agree with and welcome rolling back the heavy hand of employment rules and legislation, including vexatious employment tribunals, and will he commit his Front Benchers to do that and even go further, so that it is easier to employ people?

Liam Byrne: Before I became a Member, I started a business. I know what it is like to start a business with two people around a kitchen table, to grow it, build it, take on new staff and do well, but dealing with regulation was the easy bit; selling and making a profit was the tough bit, and that is why we need urgent action to get growth back into the economy.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Liam Byrne: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the last time, and then I shall turn my attention to the Government’s flagship Work programme.

Andrew Percy: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. He is being very generous and deserves credit for that, but is he honestly saying that, on this important issue, to which he is doing a great disservice, the upward trend in youth unemployment under his Government, the increased gap in the best and worst performing schools and the increased number of young people growing up in families where nobody has ever worked are totally and utterly unrelated to youth unemployment today? If he is, he is being completely and utterly incredible.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will want to know why he is living in the past, and what he is doing to take to his Front Benchers the argument about what more they are going to do in the autumn statement to get our young people back to work.
	We have heard about the great success that is the flagship youth programme. Now let us turn to the Work programme.

Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Liam Byrne: In a moment. I shall just tell the House a little about the Work programme.
	We have debated before the virtues of the Work programme, and I understand that young people can now be referred to it early. I shall put aside for one moment the Work and Pensions Committee’s conclusion that it is one third smaller than previous programmes, because the Minister has strong views about that, and I shall put aside also the Social Market Foundation’s analysis that the DWP offers providers of successful outcomes a maximum amount of money that is 25% less than the flexible new deal, because those facts are not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the Department itself expects three quarters of people to flow straight
	through the programme and straight back on to the dole, so I ask the House, how is that going to make a difference?

Denis MacShane: Do we not have to nail one lie—that there is some magic deregulation out there which solves the problem? European countries such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Germany—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) is aware of this—all have stronger regulation and active labour markets, so it is a huge lie to say that the poorer young workers are and the worse they are treated, the more jobs there will be.

Liam Byrne: I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is curious that while unemployment is going down in America, the eurozone and Japan, it is going up in this country.

Nick de Bois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Liam Byrne: I will give way in a moment, because I want to turn to apprenticeships, which the Minister has mentioned. Apprenticeships have sometimes been seen in this debate as the Department’s silver bullet, so let us be clear: ours was the party that rescued apprenticeships. We inherited 65,000 apprenticeships; the figure was over 260,000 when we left office. This year, 85% of new apprentices will not be young people, but people over 25. Leaked documents seen by The Guardian show that Ministers have been warned that apprenticeships are actually a re-badging of existing jobs. It turns out that about 11,000 of this year’s new places have gone to 16 to 18-year-olds. I should point out for the House that 205,000 of those aged 16 to 17 are now on the dole. If they all applied for one of those apprenticeships, they would have a 5% success rate. Getting into Oxford university is less competitive than that. Given those figures, an ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Chancellor thought that apprenticeships were
	“a rare piece of good news, but it’s turning out to be a con”.
	The unnamed ally is right: it is a con. We have a Work programme that is all programme and no work, a youth jobs scheme that costs less than the stationery budget and an apprenticeship scheme that is harder to get into than Oxford university. No wonder overall long-term youth unemployment is going through the roof. Let us hear an answer from the Minister.

John Hayes: I am very happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman all about it, but I wonder whether he will acknowledge that today there are more apprentices under 25 than the total number of apprentices when his Government left office and that the two-year growth in apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds over the last two years is bigger than at any time when his party was in office.

Liam Byrne: Will the Minister intervene again and confirm whether it is more competitive to get into Oxford university or to get on one of his apprenticeships? Just tell us: which is easier?

John Hayes: I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to the question that I asked, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. His Government commissioned the Leitch report—[ Interruption. ] It was probably the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) who commissioned it—he was running the show in the Treasury then, or so he now pretends. What does the Leitch report say? It says that we need to upskill and reskill the work force and that apprentices are a critical way of doing that. Is the right hon. Gentleman now denying that? Has he changed his mind, or does he in fact think that we need to use apprenticeships for that purpose?

Liam Byrne: I want apprenticeships for young people, and it is this Government who are not delivering them. That is why, all over the country, we now see long-term youth unemployment rocketing up. Some 233 Members of this House now represent constituencies where long-term youth unemployment has risen by over 100% this year. Overall, long-term youth unemployment is up by 64% since the start of the year. All over Britain, scars that we thought were gone for ever are reappearing, and not just in Labour constituencies, but in places such as North Dorset, Aylesbury and Stevenage. Some 238 of us now speak for constituencies where, since the election, youth unemployment is up by 20%.

Therese Coffey: rose—

Liam Byrne: In a moment.
	The bad news is that business is saying that it will get worse before it gets better. In October, BBC Radio 1 surveyed the business community. It found that two thirds of firms surveyed said that the situation would get worse for young workers before it got better. Half said that the Government should do more to train young workers. That is surely a sentiment that the hon. Lady will agree with.

Therese Coffey: I think everybody in this House shares the sentiment that it is a tragedy for any young person who wants to work not to be able to get a job, but we are trying on that. What I would like to understand from the right hon. Gentleman is this. Under the last Government, people who were unemployed for 12 months were moved on to a training programme. That meant that they moved out of the unemployment figures, but they went back if they were not successful in securing a job. This is an opportunity for a genuine debate about the future of our country, but I am afraid that some of the—how can I put it—casual use of certain statistics is not helping us to achieve that.

Liam Byrne: Is the hon. Lady seriously denying that a crisis in youth unemployment is unfolding now? [ Interruption. ] I am glad that she says from a sedentary position that she agrees that there is crisis, because the question now is what we do about it. That is the answer we want from the Government.
	Before I set out what the Opposition believe is the right next step, let us remind ourselves who is paying the bill for this failure. Since the Government came to office, the benefits bill alone is projected to rise by more than £12 billion, which is £500 for every house in this country. To pay that bill for the new workless, the
	Government are having to squeeze working people through cuts to child care and tax credits, and the acceleration of the state pension age. Good people who are doing the right thing and who are trying to get on and go up in life are being squeezed to pay the bill for people who have been put out of work by this Government.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a massive plan for young people in our country, because this problem will get worse? We need education and training leading to work in the community and the environment. We need something bold and imaginative. The fact is that Government Members know that it is cheaper to keep young people on the dole.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

Robert Halfon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: No. I could speak about this all afternoon, but I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so let me draw my remarks to a close by outlining what the Opposition believe should be done.
	The Opposition believe that the starting point should be a new tax on bank bonuses. That is what this country is crying out for. There are only a few weeks left before the Chancellor’s autumn statement. The Secretary of State is not here but I hope he reads Hansard. Let me give him some advice about what he should negotiate for. He should be putting on the table the five-point plan that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out before the House.
	Let us set out what that plan means for young people in this country. Many people in this country deserve a tax cut, but our country’s bankers are not among them. The scale of the imminent bank bonus round is already in the news. I see that there is a bonus pot of £500 million at Royal Bank of Scotland—shareholder: Her Majesty’s Government. Here is a sentiment with which most hon. Members can agree. Lord Oakeshott, the former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson said:
	“I don’t want my taxes going to pay for hundreds of RBS investment bankers taking home millions in bonuses as their profits tumble.”
	Many hon. Members would agree with that. The Opposition advice is simple: let us have a fair and sensible tax on bankers’ bonuses. That could create a fund of £2 billion, which we believe could help to get 800,000 back to work, including 11,500 jobs here in London; 5,000 in the south-east, the region of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling); and 8,500 in my home region, the west midlands. That is the kind of action that the Secretary of State should propose.

Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: I will give way in a moment. Let me tell the Minister this: that policy would be popular. Over the summer, I asked my constituents whether the bankers ought to share their blessings a little more generously and whether they should do more to help get young people back to work—97% of them said yes. That policy would be popular, so why is the Minister not proposing it?

Chris Grayling: I wonder whether I could just clarify a point. The Leader of the Opposition has previously announced that the bank bonus tax money will be spent on additional infrastructure, reversing child benefit cuts and paying down debt, and, I believe, seven other commitments. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether those policies have now been dropped?

Liam Byrne: If the Minister wants a full breakdown of the costs, I will be happy to provide it for him; and if he wants me to support him in his negotiations with the Chancellor, I will be right by his side.
	With that policy should come an acceleration of investment in capital infrastructure, as the CBI calls for today; a temporary cut in VAT to help families up and down the country; a one-year cut in VAT on home improvements; and a tax break on small firms that take on extra workers, especially young people, as proposed by the Federation of Small Businesses.
	The whole country knows that this Government are failing our young people. This year, our country has seen one of the fastest ever increases in long-term youth unemployment. When the TUC, the CBI, the Prince’s Trust and the Work Foundation are telling the Government to change course, surely it is time for them to act. Before the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), was encumbered with the cares of office, he wrote a book about the baby boomers. In the introduction, he writes that
	“the charge is that the boomers have been guilty of a monumental failure to protect the interests of future generations”.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is not here today, is—believe me—a baby boomer. If he does not change course, and fast, he will stand before the House guilty as charged.

Chris Grayling: I regard youth unemployment as one of the most difficult parts of the legacy left to us by the previous Labour Government. In 2010, at the time of the general election, 930,000 young people in this country were unemployed. When Labour left office, there were more young people not in education or employment than when it took office in 1997. Labour also left behind one of the most difficult sets of economic circumstances that any incoming Government have ever faced. Indeed, we do not need to use our own words to describe that; we remember clearly the words of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who left a note behind saying, “There’s no money left.”

Liam Byrne: Will the Minister just remind the House what level youth unemployment stands at today? Will he confirm that it is the highest figure on record?

Chris Grayling: Actually, youth unemployment—genuine youth unemployment—is not at the highest level on record. When we exclude from the figures full-time students looking for part-time jobs, the level of youth unemployment today is not the highest on record. However, I regard any level of youth unemployment as unacceptable, and something that we should work to try to solve.

Karl Turner: In researching for this debate, I found an Office for National Statistics summary of labour market statistics. In one of the columns dealing with youth unemployment figures, under the heading “Last time higher”, I found, in bold writing, the word “Never”. That figure has never been higher.

Chris Grayling: When we exclude full-time students in colleges of higher and further education, the level of youth unemployment today is not the highest on record. I reiterate, however, that I regard any level of youth unemployment as unacceptable. It is a challenge and a priority for the Government. We have to remember that the problem goes back a decade. Youth unemployment started to rise in 2003-04, and it has been rising steadily since. Even in good years, the previous Government’s policies failed to deliver solutions. Eighteen months ago, we inherited a series of failed programmes that had failed to deliver real solutions for young people, and we are trying to turn that round.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem has been the failure of our primary schools over the past decade? Under the last Government, 500,000 children left primary school unable to read or write. Is that not part of the reason that we have a skills problem today?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has highlighted one of the many challenges that the previous Government left behind for us. There was a total failure to equip young people for the workplace and for a working life, a failure in our education system and many other failures, not least of which was the disastrous economic inheritance. When the Labour Government left office, they were borrowing £1 in every £4 that they spent. Our first priority remains sorting out the challenges in our public finances. Does anyone seriously believe that, if we were in the same position as some other European countries in failing to deal with our deficit, business would want to invest in this country rather than cutting jobs and moving elsewhere? It is my clear view that, had we not taken action to deal with the deficit, unemployment would be higher than it is now, rather than lower.

Liam Byrne: Can the right hon. Gentleman just remind the House by how much the Government have had to revise upwards their borrowing forecast over the past few months?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman talked about international challenges, but let me remind him that, three months ago, youth unemployment was falling and was below its level at the time of the election. He should also remember that we are now in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in the eurozone in decades, perhaps in modern times, and that our labour market is not immune to that. However, we are now turning round the set of failed programmes that existed under the previous Government and putting in place measures that will make a difference to the long-term unemployed.

Mark Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that containing, controlling and reducing the structural deficit is a prerequisite for economic growth and job creation?

Chris Grayling: It is my view that had we not taken those steps, interest rates would be higher, investment would be lower and unemployment would be higher than it is today. I know it is a point of difference between the two sides of the House, but Labour’s alternative strategy would simply involve Britain borrowing more money. I do not understand how it is possible to solve a crisis created by too much borrowing by borrowing even more.

Eilidh Whiteford: I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that youth unemployment is to a large extent symptomatic of the fragility of the wider economy, but will he also acknowledge that the Government’s approach to the wider economy is not working and is actually exacerbating youth unemployment?

Chris Grayling: I do not accept that. I shall briefly set out some of the measures we are taking on the broader economic front that will make a difference to unemployment.
	The regional growth fund is now delivering investment to parts of the economy where the private sector is too small, and where we want to see private sector growth, and the research and development and investment in infrastructure that creates jobs. The introduction of enterprise zones in parts of the country where the private sector is weak will encourage businesses to grow and develop. The cut in corporation tax will deliver the lowest headline rate in the developed world. Those are examples of measures that will help to make Britain a better place to do business.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister talks about the regional growth fund and enterprise zones, but those words will mean little to young people in my constituency who have seen long-term youth unemployment rise by 192% over the past nine months. Can he tell me in plain English what he will do for those young people in Lewisham?

Chris Grayling: I can indeed, and I shall carefully go through the different measures we have taken to tackle the youth unemployment problem. It is also important to note that we are targeting investment and support on parts of the economy where we want private sector growth so that jobs can develop.
	It is worth remembering that the previous Government fiddled the figures on youth unemployment; they claimed to have abolished it. When people moved on to the new deal, they had a period of work experience and were transferred to a training allowance, at which point they no longer showed up in the figures. By that mechanism people who remained out of work for long periods temporarily disappeared from the figures, so long-term youth unemployment was, according to the previous Government, “abolished.” That was absolute nonsense.

Barry Sheerman: I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he is a reasonable man. People outside this place want a positive initiative, to which we can bind other parties. They want an adventurous and innovative scheme to give young people the chance to get off the dole and into training and work. That is what we are waiting to hear. If the Minister comes up with a scheme like that tonight, we shall support him.

Chris Grayling: I shall be delighted to talk about some of the specific measures we are taking, but before I do that, let me address the issue about the future jobs fund. It had two key flaws. The first was that it was entirely in the public and voluntary sectors; it did not take young people into the private sector, where there has been employment growth over the last 12 months. That was a fundamental flaw. The other one, in a world where, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, there was no money left, was that the FJF was by far the most expensive scheme; it was four times as expensive per job outcome as the new deal for young people, and massively more expensive than previous schemes. We have developed a better package of support; it will be more effective and more cost-effective. Through the various schemes that I am about to explain, I estimate that we shall provide support for about 350,000 young unemployed people over the next two years, to make sure that nobody is left without the help they need to try to get themselves into work.

Iain McKenzie: The Minister has referred to a number of issues about the future jobs fund. In Inverclyde, when I was council leader we were the second most effective constituency in using the fund, putting some 400 of our young people into employment, mostly in private sector jobs. In Inverclyde, we are putting our money where our mouth is; on our own backs, we are continuing the future jobs fund for a further year, with the target of putting 500 young people into jobs. The future jobs fund worked, and it is still working.

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Administration believe in localism, and a local authority is free to do what it wants to support the unemployed. I welcome any local partnerships to deliver that. I would still say, however, that the reality is that the future jobs fund cost massively more than comparable schemes, and we believe that the package we put in place is more cost-effective and likely to deliver better success rates.

Liam Byrne: rose —

Chris Grayling: I shall give way once more to the shadow Minister, but then I am going to make some progress in explaining what we are doing.

Liam Byrne: If the right hon. Gentleman believes the future jobs fund was too expensive, is he by implication saying that he is prepared to see youth unemployment go up, because that is what has happened since the election, after which he abolished the programmes? Is he saying that youth unemployment is basically a price worth paying?

Chris Grayling: One reason this country is in its financial predicament is that the previous Government did not understand value for money. They believed in throwing money at a problem, not trying to do the most cost-effective thing. That is one reason for the right hon. Gentleman leaving that note behind, saying “no money left”.

Neil Carmichael: One of the key things I believe is important is rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing and engineering, which focuses,
	of course, on the private sector to make sure that it provides jobs. I see evidence of that happening in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that that kind of initiative is critical to ensuring that we deal with youth unemployment?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the failures of the previous Government arises when we talk to engineering firms that want to recruit young engineers and cannot find them. I think that the previous Government 's skills strategy was fundamentally misplaced. That is why the work being done by the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is in his place beside me, is so important.

Robert Halfon: Talking about the future jobs fund, although it created 90,000 jobs, almost half of the people involved were back on the dole seven months later.

Chris Grayling: What the future jobs fund did not do for many young people was provide a clear pathway into long-term employment. As to apprenticeships—my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, too, will talk about them later—we believe that they are a better strategy.
	There are three elements to the work we are doing for our young unemployed people. The first is helping those who have been unemployed for a shorter period of time to overcome that classic challenge—“if you haven’t got the experience, you can’t get a job, but you can’t get the experience unless you have got a job.” What we have done is launch our work experience scheme and its sister scheme alongside it—sector-based work academies. We launched those in the spring. Figures published this morning show that more than 50% of the young people who go through the work experience scheme are off benefits within a month of it finishing—at a cost that is a tiny fraction of the amounts spent on previous programmes.
	Employers and Jobcentre Plus are working together around the country in a way that is hugely positive to deliver real opportunities for young people to get their first steps in the workplace—and it is making a real difference. I am confident that as we come forward and expand the sector-based work academies with a mix of training and work experience, we will see a similar result. That is a very good start for the scheme.

Richard Harrington: Will my right hon. Friend inform me why the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) should be laughing at such a scheme, when I have seen it working in my constituency? I would say that substantially more than 50% of people involved with it have got into real jobs.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right; I am baffled as well. This is working far better than we expected and provides a significant piece of evidence to show that if we can get a young person into the workplace quickly to get them their initial experience, it can make a real difference. I am proud of what that scheme has achieved, and I would like to pay tribute to members of the
	Jobcentre Plus team up and down the country who are working with employers to find those work experience opportunities.
	I had occasion a couple of weeks ago to meet a group of young people who are actively looking to try to get work experience opportunities because they believe it is a real route for young people to get into employment. We are now working with that campaign to make sure we help all the young people involved to get work experience opportunities. We are, as I say, a Department providing work experience opportunities to a large number of young people, and I believe this is an important ingredient of the support we provide to those who have just entered the labour market, who are trying to get into work after a short period out of work, to make a difference for that group.

Graham Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a generation of young people were betrayed by vocational qualifications that were inappropriate, as the Wolf report indicated earlier this year? It is ironic to see the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer among the Front-Bench team, because when he came before the Select Committee, which used to be chaired by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), he refused to listen when he was told again and again that the diploma was going to be a hugely expensive mistake. He refused to listen, spent millions of pounds of public money and let down young people with a diploma programme that was not fit for purpose.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has made a good point. To be honest, I do not know why any of us listens to this lot. They were a disaster in Government, and the country is well rid of them. What we are trying to do now is repair the damage caused by 13 years of mismanagement.

William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: I want to make a bit progress first.
	Let me now deal with the second element of our strategy: how we will deal with long-term youth unemployment, a problem that has become much more acute now that we have stopped massaging the figures and hiding the real picture. I believe that the Work programme will make a real difference to those young people. It has been up and running for four months—

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: I think that the programme is doing good work. I have visited providers throughout the country—

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: I extend an invitation to Members on both sides of the House to visit their local Work programme providers. They can contact my office if necessary to arrange the introduction. I think that they will be impressed by the work that is being done.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: We will publish details of what is happening in due course, but I can tell the House now that more people have been referred to the Work programme than we originally projected, that it is growing fast, and that a large number of providers are having a great deal of success in getting people into work.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: I pay tribute to one of our providers, EOS in the west midlands, which has just achieved its 1,000th job placement. I congratulate all its staff on their success—

Liam Byrne: rose—

Chris Grayling: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will visit them.

Liam Byrne: I should love to do so, and when I do I shall ask EOS for its performance statistics, because I understand that the Minister has banned their publication. If he is so confident about the performance of the Work programme, he should tell the House what it is delivering.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman is, classically, trying to have it both ways. On one hand he tells me off about national statistics, and on the other he tells me off for not obeying the rules on national statistics. What does he want? These are national statistics, and they will be published in line with national statistics rules. He will just have to wait.
	What I will say now is that so far I am encouraged by the progress that is being made. All of us—Members in all parts of the House—need the Work programme to work and to make a difference for the long-term unemployed, and I am confident that it will do that. For the first time we are giving the providers genuine professional freedom to do what works for our young people, and I believe that if we trust the professionals and do not tell them what to do, as the last Government did, we are much more likely to be successful.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. This time I want to emphasise the importance of a proper interface between the education and business sectors, providing experienced, professional contact, so that people understand that they are receiving the kind of education that will lead them into jobs.

Chris Grayling: Absolutely. The Department for Education is working hard to remedy the failings of our schools system in partnership with my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is working with the FE sector to try to deliver a much better quality of vocational education. That, along with the partnership that now exists between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will ensure that the unemployed are presented with a genuinely joined-up offer of an opportunity to obtain the skills that they need, and it represents a real step change from what we saw in the past.
	The third element of the support—

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: I will.

Sheila Gilmore: I am obliged to the Minister for finally noticing me.
	Is it not the Minister himself who is trying to have the question of the Work programme both ways? He does not want to publish figures on a national basis, but when he chooses, he will use figures plucked from we know not where to prove that the programme is working. Can he explain exactly how a work programme ever creates any jobs?

Chris Grayling: The point of the Work programme is very straightforward. We have a team of organisations throughout the country helping people to get into work. We pay them if they succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be making a good start. In due course, when I can do so, under national statistics rules, I will publish information for the benefit of the whole House. I want to expose to the whole market who is doing well and who is doing less well, so that there is competitive pressure on organisations to become the lead provider. I will publish those figures as soon as I can according to national statistics rules, and as soon as the programme has been going long enough for them to be reliable.
	The third point—

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Chris Grayling: I will give way once more, and then I must make some progress and wind up my speech.

Sarah Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very generous in giving way. Does he agree that this is all about local partnerships? Organisations such as Cornwall Works will help the 105 young people in my constituency who have been unemployed for more than six months to get back to work. Those young people will benefit from the new apprenticeships created in my constituency in the last year—more than 660. Local partnerships enable such people to find real jobs with real employers.

Chris Grayling: Local partnerships are immensely important, and now the Work programme providers have complete freedom to forge partnerships that will make a genuine difference.
	The third element of our strategy is apprenticeships. Over the past 12 months, we have launched 100,000 new apprenticeships. I believe that more apprenticeships are now available in this country than ever before. We have many apprenticeships that are targeted at young people. The previous Government’s track record on apprenticeships was, as usual, full of rhetoric but lacking in delivery. They repeatedly made promises for an overall number of apprenticeships, and they repeatedly failed to deliver what they promised. We are hitting targets for apprenticeships. That is the first time in a long time that that has happened, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for that.

Ian Austin: How many of these apprenticeships are reserved for 18 to 24-year-olds?

Chris Grayling: In the Budget, we announced an additional 40,000 apprenticeships targeted at the young unemployed, and the overall number of young people under the age of 24 on apprenticeships is greater than
	the total number of apprenticeships that were available under the previous Government. My hon. Friend will walk us through the details of that when he concludes the debate; this is very much his baby, and he should take credit for what he has achieved.
	I might also mention the support we are providing for the short-term young unemployed through the work experience scheme, our sector-based work academies and the work being done through Jobcentre Plus. The Work programme is the biggest ever welfare-to-work programme of its kind in the country. We have the biggest payment-by-results scheme in the world, offering tailored, personalised support to help young people actually get into work right now. There is the opportunity to move through into an apprenticeship, which is an appropriate path into work for many young people. Never before has this scale of apprenticeships been provided in this country.
	I believe these measures represent a coherent strategy to deal with a problem that was left behind by the previous Government, and that has been made more challenging by a difficult set of international circumstances. Unlike the previous Government with their failures, we are determined to tackle this problem, and to succeed.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Many Members wish to speak. The winding-up speeches will start at 6.40 pm, so there is not a lot of time. Although there is a four-minute limit on speeches, I ask Members to speak more briefly than that if they can do so. I also ask Members to show restraint in making interventions, so as to avoid doing others out of an opportunity to speak.

Adrian Bailey: We are having a debate about the economic situation and its impacts on young people. My constituency has felt the chill winds disproportionately, as has the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). My local authority, Sandwell, has the third highest rate of youth unemployment in the country. We also endured high youth unemployment under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government made substantial inroads, but the problem is now back with a vengeance.
	On the general economic situation, some of the Government’s measures are aggravating the problems, which are a by-product of our poor economic performance. The higher education proposals, for instance, will disincentivise young people from low-income, low-aspiration backgrounds from entering higher education, and there is a great danger that young people from areas such as mine will look to take an alternative route, such as vocational training and apprenticeships. That is not in itself bad, and it may well be of great benefit to the economy, but the cohort of young people who previously would have gone into apprenticeships and training will find that they have nowhere to go. That is already being reflected in the increase in the number of NEETs in the country as a whole, and certainly in my area.
	The Government trumpet the progress made on apprenticeships, and I welcome apprenticeships, as they are potentially of enormous benefit. However, the fact remains that the greatest increase in apprenticeships, as of this moment, is in the post-24 age group, and there is a suspicion that this is just a rebadging of the old Train to Gain scheme. In addition, the headline figures do not take into account the number of short apprenticeships—these are not the two or three-year courses that we commonly think of as apprenticeships which will enable people to go into work. My Committee will be undertaking an inquiry into this in the new year, and I hope to be able to drill down to find out exactly what the situation is.

John Hayes: I am sorry to have to intervene, because I know that time is short. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I take his work seriously in that regard and that we, like him, are determined to see apprenticeships of the right quality and to see bureaucracy cut so that more firms can be involved. He is right to say that apprenticeships matter, but the brand matters too and we are as committed to quality as he is.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the words of the Minister, whose commitment to this cause I would not doubt for a moment. I am sure that we will have an extremely enlightening inquiry in the new year.
	I shall highlight two measures that would cost the Government very little but would help. First, they should continue the funding for the graduate internship scheme—these are funded internships for graduates in small businesses. This has proved to be of enormous benefit to small businesses and to the graduates, and the total cost to the Government would be about £8 million. Given that this is a win-win situation—it helps the small businesses and graduates, and the cost would be lower than that of keeping them unemployed—I would have thought it was an obvious thing to continue. Also it sends messages to young people thinking of going to university that there is career progression after graduation. In the context of the highest level of graduate unemployment since 1992, that is a very important thing for the Government to do.
	Secondly, small businesses are crying out for a financial incentive to encourage them to employ young people. The Government have introduced national insurance breaks. The existing scheme has not been very successful, and there is £850 million allocated for it. It should be broadened to existing businesses or, as the CBI says, a possible cash payment should be established for companies that take on young people and give them meaningful employment. These are not the words of tax-and-spend merchants; they are coming from the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI—the authentic voice of the business community. If the Government do that, without great cost, it could make an impact on youth unemployment.

Nigel Adams: I speak as someone who knows what it is like to have been made redundant, and I have also seen my father lose his job in his 50s. I can tell hon. Members that there are not many things worse than when a breadwinner comes back home to his family to tell them that he is out of work
	and there is no income. I also recall that as a 17-year-old I was asked, somewhat prematurely, to leave school, and I found myself having to look for work. My first job was not the one that I would have ideally wanted, but it was work and it provided my first wage—£48 a week, as I recall it. Getting a start is crucial for young people and I always tell the youngsters I talk to that being in the workplace is much better than not being in work at all, because they have to get something on their CV.
	It is easy to go for the headlines and talk down our economy, but I would like to take a moment to talk up this Government’s efforts to improve youth employment chances, not just through job creation, but through their support of the apprenticeship scheme programme. Just over two months ago, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning announced cuts to bureaucracy to encourage employers to take on a large number of apprentices, and this serves as a proven way to fill the skills gap in our economy. As someone who has owned and run businesses, and actually created employment before entering this House, I am all too aware of the damage caused by excessive red tape and bureaucracy. It is vital that we reduce regulation in order to encourage businesses to employ youngsters. I am pleased that the Government have set about tackling this via the red tape challenge.

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Adams: I would love to but I need to crack on; we have only got four minutes each.
	This Government also promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but the figure has been surpassed and we have seen a record year—an increase of over 50%. In fact, in my constituency 850 people are on apprenticeships, an increase of 67% in the last year. Only by proving to business and the private sector that it is worth their while investing in youngsters can we fulfil our long-term goal of reducing unemployment, and I am confident that, via apprenticeships, we are taking the right steps towards that aim.
	Hon. Members can do more than their bit to help young people and others back into work. That is why I organised a jobs fair in my constituency, and I know that many of my colleagues have done something similar. More than 1,100 jobseekers came through the door—both unemployed, and employed but looking for new opportunities. It was evident to me at my jobs fair that vacancy statistics from Jobcentre Plus do not necessarily reflect the actual climate. Its figures for October 2011, published in the Library, would have people believe that at least three jobseekers apply for every vacancy advertised in my constituency—a deficit of employment. However, many of the work and training opportunities offered by the 52 different organisations that turned up to my jobs fair were not advertised in the Jobcentre Plus system, and never are. I am also pleased to say that the feedback from the jobs fair was very positive, and lots of people have received interviews and job opportunities and have started work. Indeed, I have visited some of the youngsters who have started work.
	I am confident that the Government have a credible plan for getting this country’s finances back on track, reassuring businesses and reducing regulation. Labour should take note that—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Pat Glass: I had prepared something long and detailed, but I will keep my remarks brief because I want to let other Members speak.
	When I made my maiden speech in May 2010, I spoke about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in my constituency; and when I checked my predecessor’s maiden speech, made in 1987, I discovered that she, too, spoke about unemployment in the north-east and North West Durham.

John Hayes: I remember that.

Pat Glass: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Anyone looking at those two speeches could be forgiven for thinking that this is a deeply entrenched problem that cannot be dealt with, but actually, that is not true. Between 1997 and 2010, North West Durham, like most of the post-industrial north, underwent an economic and social revolution, with the support of the previous Government, but it is amazing how quickly the clock has turned back to the 1980s. Under a previous Conservative Government, male unemployment in Consett, in my constituency, reached 100%. Can people now imagine what it is like to live in a place with 100% male unemployment?
	Youth unemployment in my constituency has doubled in the last 12 months and now stands at 35%. Unemployment generally has increased by 20%, and it is a direct result of Government policies. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to rebalance the economy from the south to the north and from the public sector to the private sector, so that, as public sector jobs disappear, they are replaced by private sector jobs. We would all agree with that, but in my constituency, full-time relatively well-paid public sector jobs are disappearing at a rate of knots and are being replaced by very few part-time, poorly paid jobs.
	If the Government are serious about delivering on unemployment in places such as the north-east, they need to be serious about a growth strategy. We do not need enterprise zones and short-term grants. We have had those before and they do not stay: as soon as the grants run out, the jobs disappear and everybody runs back to the south-east. We need instead proper infrastructure investment, so that private companies are attracted to the area and stay. That means investment in roads and rail, airports and broadband. Some 46% of my constituency is a broadband blackspot.
	We need investment in skills. Nissan came to the north-east not because of the grants but because of the skills that were there when the shipyards and the steelworks closed down. We need investment in a growth strategy for the regions. But what have the Government done? They have cut public expenditure for infrastructure and jobs, and cut investment in skills. The abolition of the EMA has led directly to falls in participation rates at 16 to levels that we have not seen since the 1990s, and the tripling of tuition fees has led to a 12% reduction in university applications this year.
	Young people are having a hard time from this Government and it is due not only to the abolition of the EMA and the rise in tuition fees, but to the cuts in home-to-school transport, home-to-college transport, careers services, youth services and local bus services.
	Young people are becoming more cynical now than they have ever been about politics and the role of the Government. I am pleading with the Government now to listen to the suffering out there and start putting in place a proper plan for growth and jobs for young people.

Paul Maynard: It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate. I know the Opposition like to make their Wednesday afternoons political theatre, but there are many people on the Government Benches who are concerned about youth unemployment and have ideas about how the situation can be improved.
	As the MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I represent the fourth most deprived Conservative-held seat in the country. That is no badge of honour. It is with no sense of satisfaction that I report that year on year youth unemployment has risen 36% since September 2010. I take no pleasure from the fact that even on the figures that were fed to The Times by the Labour party, the number of long-term youth unemployed has risen from 75 individuals to 100 individuals since May 2010, but I point out to Labour Members, as they seem to have failed to understand earlier, that there are 276 constituencies where youth unemployment has fallen or remained static since May 2010, according to the same figures as they obtained from the House of Commons Library.
	I am sure that everyone who speaks in the debate will say that apprenticeships matter, and they matter to me. I have taken on one apprentice, Nathan, in my constituency office, and he is excellent. Many on the Government Benches have done the same, but we in the House obviously cannot solve the problem alone. I am delighted that, thanks to what the Government have been doing, the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has risen from 300 to 940.

Meg Hillier: All hon. Members would agree that apprenticeships are a good thing and that we want more of them, but what would the hon. Gentleman say about the issue that I have picked up on on doorsteps throughout the country, which is that young people with A-levels, and sometimes with degrees, are going for apprenticeships that would normally have been available to young people with lower levels of qualifications, thereby pricing them, so to speak, out of the market? Does he share my concern about that and will he raise the issue with Ministers in his Government?

Paul Maynard: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. It brings together a number of points that Members are likely to make this evening. First, we should welcome the fact that better qualified individuals are now seeking apprenticeships. We should not say that apprenticeships are only for those who are not academically inclined. Secondly, the Labour party now disapproves of older people seeking to take on apprenticeships. It was a Labour Government who commissioned the Leitch review, which wanted to see more older people going into apprenticeships.
	I represent a seaside town. I know the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) does not understand the economics of seaside towns, so I shall try to explain to him that one of our fundamental problems, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in The  Guardian interview that I saw in the debate pack, is that of generational worklessness and the potential for generational exodus, even—people not finding opportunities in seaside towns and having to leave.
	For members of the third generation who do not have a job and cannot find a job, the inclination to go out and look for a job, and even seeing that part of their life involves going out to work, is lost. Part of the solution is getting the older generation into apprenticeships and into work as much as the younger generation. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) tried to make clear, the problem did not start in May 2010. It did not start even in May 1997 or May 1979. There has been a gradual structural problem of worklessness, particularly in post-industrial societies. Tourism and hospitality are not like coal mining or the steel industry, but they have none the less gone through a period of decline in my constituency and we have seen employment and opportunities fall as a consequence, so there is a challenge.
	The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the Prince’s Trust, which does a fantastic job in my constituency. Three times a year it takes a group of 12 young people from deprived backgrounds. I have been to one of the thank you parties at the end of a session and heard the powerful tales of how they got into the situations they found themselves in. Many brought their problems to Blackpool from outside the town. Many came from broken homes, broken families and disappointed backgrounds, yet they have struggled and managed to succeed.
	What frustrates me about the debate is not so much the usual political to and fro, the misuse of statistics and Members trying to portray things as good or bad, but the Labour party’s failure to understand that this is not about who is to blame. It is about trying to understand why worklessness occurs in our society, why young people are unable to enter employment and what we need to do to get them there. The Government are making progress. I would of course like it to be faster, but we are putting the building blocks in place and I welcome that.

Derek Twigg: There could hardly be an issue of greater importance to my constituents in these challenging economic times than jobs and security for their families. Almost every day I hear about the consequences of unemployment and poverty in my constituency. It is not just about people losing their jobs; it is about people losing their homes or worrying about keeping their homes and the resulting stresses on family life.
	Youth unemployment is a major concern in my constituency. Nationally it is at an 18-year high, at 991,000, with long-term youth unemployment up by almost two thirds this January and by a staggering four fifths in Halton. We are again seeing the familiar face of Conservative Governments: mass unemployment, people
	being thrown on the scrapheap and young people hit particularly hard. To put things in context, back in 1993, in the twilight of the miserable 18 years of Conservative rule, youth unemployment in Halton stood at a massive 22.7%, and it was almost 27% in the autumn of 1985. For most of the early 1990s the rate remained stubbornly above 20%, even as late as 1996, well after the last recession.
	Under the Labour Government youth unemployment in Halton never fell below 10%, which was not good enough, but it was still a lot less than it had been under the previous Conservative Government, and at times it fell as low as 4%. Of course, any youth unemployment is unacceptable, but comparing what the previous Tory Government and the current Tory Government have done shows the natural progression and where they are going. Their economic policy is failing and hurting. It is clearly not working because the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the Government will borrow an extra £46 billion over the next year. As the Business Secretary said on 15 March:
	“Cuts without economic growth will not deal with the deficit.”
	The motion before us also refers to the International Monetary Fund’s concerns about the Government’s approach. A few weeks ago I met some young people in Runcorn who were on a training scheme to get jobs in the construction industry, which is massively difficult to get into. They were desperate to get work, but they want the confidence that there will be jobs for them. I regularly meet young people who want to work and get those skills. Only last Sunday I met members of the Halton Youth Parliament in Runcorn, who told me that one of their biggest problems is transport. When they are looking for a job or training or a college place, being able to get there is vital. The Government’s cuts to transport, particularly bus transport, have been very hard for my constituency.
	There is of course concern about the banks, which should be doing more. I strongly support our proposal for a £2 billion bankers’ bonus tax, which would fund work for 100,000 jobs and allow every small firm taking on extra workers a one-year break from national insurance contributions. The banks should be doing more to help the unemployed, particularly young people. I have twice raised concerns about bank lending to small businesses with the Chancellor on the Floor of the House, and he is looking again at what more can be done. We shall see about that, but there must be a recognition that not enough is happening and that the policy is failing. He has to do more to help young people who are unemployed. It is important that we make it clear that we must have a growth strategy.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Derek Twigg: I will not, because I have very little time remaining.
	Finally, in my constituency we have done a great deal of work with the local authority and local businesses, with the help of the previous Government, to bring forward important projects, such as the Mersey multi-modal gateway, the new Mersey gateway bridge, the Daresbury science and innovation campus and a number of other important projects. Some of those are supported by the Government, but they were developed under the previous
	Government, which had a growth policy to encourage jobs in areas of high unemployment that need development and need to see—

Nigel Evans: Order. I call Lorely Burt.

Lorely Burt: I shall be very brief. There is not enough time to cover everything mentioned in the motion, so I will avoid the usual political knockabout in the first part of the motion, which is the Labour narrative about how we got into this economic situation. Those arguments are well rehearsed. What matters is not how we got here, but how we get out. I agree with some of the suggestions the Opposition have made. I have long campaigned for a 5% VAT rate on home renovation materials and have asked the industry to analyse the cost-effectiveness of that proposal.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	I agree that we could work up a programme to give national insurance relief to small companies taking on new workers, maybe even in the form of a rebate after the first complete year of employment. I have got lots of other ideas, which I hope colleagues in the Treasury will consider. Again, I agree with the Opposition: we need more incentives to stimulate private business to rev up the engine of growth.
	It all boils down to growth, but it must be growth in the private sector, not growth led by creating jobs that do not exist, which is what one could argue the future jobs fund did. The Minister has outlined all the steps we are taking to create jobs and prosperity. The motion says only two things about youth unemployment: that long-term youth unemployment is up, and that we should not have scrapped the future jobs fund. Well, youth unemployment is up, but it grew under Labour by 40%—going from 664,000 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in May 1997 to 924,000 in May 2010. According to the latest statistics, that figure is 991,000. I hope that a Labour Member will intervene to explain to me how that equates to a 68% increase because, according to my mathematics, that seems more like 7%.

Meg Hillier: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially given that time is short. Does she not agree that, out in the real world, people do not want the bickering. What they are concerned about, as we should be, is that an entire cohort—for example, graduates—is experiencing a higher rate of unemployment. We should be addressing the whole cohort issue, because we are condemning an entire group of young people to lower incomes and worse life chances as a result of Government policies.

Lorely Burt: I am sure we agree on the seriousness of the situation and all the different groups of young people who are affected. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not answer my question, but never mind.

Rachel Reeves: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I am sorry, but I will not give way. Dealing with youth unemployment is incredibly hard, but the Opposition should not make political capital out of a relatively small increase in existing figures that are a legacy of their own figures.

Rachel Reeves: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I have only two minutes. I am very sorry.
	The future jobs fund was well intentioned, but ineffective and expensive. It created new positions that were not, by definition, real jobs. It was so ineffective, in fact, that young people who were not on the programme fared better in getting real employment than those who were. It cost more than it saved, and failed to accomplish its targets. Now the Opposition are also calling for a bank levy to raise funds for a youth jobs fund. However, we have already introduced a bank levy, and it raises more each year than they managed to raise with their bankers bonus tax.
	So what have we done for young unemployed people? We have concentrated on apprenticeships and getting people into real jobs. We have exceeded the targets in our apprenticeship scheme, with the provisional figures showing that the number of apprenticeships has grown by 58% across the UK and some areas showing growth of 198%. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) would like to welcome the 82% rise in apprenticeships in his constituency. The Work programme is designed to ensure that people can get out of a cycle of benefits and get back into work that pays. The jury is still out on the Work programme, but I am really hopeful that the work of specialist agencies, using their skills to find jobs for long-term unemployed individuals, will bear fruit.
	I welcome the fact that Labour Members are bringing ideas to the table. As I said, I agree with some of them, but not all. We will listen and we will work with all colleagues in this House for a more prosperous future for all our constituents.

Iain Wright: Youth unemployment is the single biggest social and economic problem facing my constituency, and its effects will leave a scar on Hartlepool’s prospects for decades to come. My town has the dubious and unwanted distinction of having the worst youth unemployment in the country: 1,450 young people in Hartlepool—17.4%, or nearly one in five—young people do not have a job. We have not seen such levels of youth unemployment in my town since 1995. What is particularly worrying is that in my constituency unemployment is rising fastest among young people, and rising much faster than the regional or national average. Since this Government came to office 18 months ago, youth unemployment in Hartlepool has increased by some 60% per cent, and it has been increasing fastest in the past six months.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful to my fellow Teesside MP for giving way. Does he remember when Middlesbrough football fans used to chant, “There’s only one job on Teesside”, in celebration of Joseph-Désiré Job, who played for the club? That is no longer very funny, because young people might be under the impression that it is actually true as hundreds of them chase every single job opportunity on Teesside.

Iain Wright: As a proud Hartlepool United season ticket holder, I will never celebrate the achievements of Middlesbrough football club, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we have been here before.
	When I was growing up in the 1980s, the spectre of unemployment haunted my constituency. The de-industrialisation of this country in the 1980s hit my region hard. In the recession of 1979 to 1981, an astonishing 20,000 jobs were lost in my constituency as shipyards, steelworks and heavy engineering firms closed their doors. In many respects, Hartlepool and the wider north-east is still, in 2011, adjusting to the huge economic shocks of the 1980s and 1990s. I suggest that the Government need to learn the lessons of history and acknowledge the problem that youth unemployment creates. They need to act decisively to ensure that the young people facing a bleak future are not abandoned permanently and that Hartlepool does not see once again, as we did in the 1980s, a lost and forgotten generation.
	We all know that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it is for them to gain employment. Young people are hit particularly hard in this regard. They cannot get a job because they have not got experience, but they cannot get experience because they have not got a job. It does not have to be like this. The future jobs fund was a particular success in my constituency, helping more than 720 young people in Hartlepool to get a foot on the career ladder and providing them with tangible help and support into employment.
	In contrast, we now have a Government stripping out demand in the economy and a Chancellor who is changing his growth forecasts more often than he changes his socks and neglecting the talent, potential and passion of the next generation. I urge the Government to change course—not to concentrate solely on deficit reduction to the exclusion of everything else, but to have a more sophisticated and holistic economic policy based on stimulating demand for our economy, providing a framework to make Britain the best place on the planet to do business and, crucially, providing good future prospects for our young people. Other nations are doing this. Germany now has a lower jobless rate in general and among young people than it did at the start of the financial crisis. It has achieved that through greater emphasis on infrastructure spending, ensuring that its economy will be more productive and efficient in future; and providing job subsidies, ensuring that its work force, particularly its young people, remain job-ready and equipped with the skills needed in the 21st century.
	In my lifetime, in the 1980s, a Conservative Government abandoned a whole generation in my constituency. The rationale behind this was that such unemployment was a price worth paying. I implore the Government please not to make the same costly mistakes again.

Guto Bebb: My hon. Friend the Minister said that he believes strongly in localism, and so do I. However, having suffered under a Labour-led or Labour Administration in Cardiff for the past 12 years, it is sometimes difficult to keep supporting the idea of localism.
	Since 2000, the level of Welsh GDP in comparison with the European average has fallen from 68.6% to 64.4%. At the same time, between 2000 and 2010, the
	number of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales who are unemployed increased from 15.8% to 21.5%. The sad fact about this debate is that Opposition Members simply do not recognise that a failing economic performance is related to a failure to create jobs for young people.
	Wales has had support from Europe on a regular basis because of the failure of the policies adopted by the Labour party in Wales. Such is the failure of the Labour Government in Wales to put together policies that make a difference that Wales is one of only eight regions out of 66 in Europe that have qualified for objective 1 funding to see its prosperity decline. To put that in context, over the past 10 years under Labour, Wales has gone backwards while even the Greeks have gone forward. That is the reality of living under Labour. I support localism, but in Wales we suffer for it.
	We cannot divorce this debate from education, skills and training for young people. Recently, there was evidence from the largest inward investor in the south Wales valleys over the past five years that less than 20% of the young people who were referred for job interviews—not for high-level jobs, but for comparatively low-level jobs—had adequate skills in reading, writing and arithmetic, and, more importantly, adequate social skills. Is that a surprise when the Labour Government in Cardiff have deliberately decided to spent £600 per head less than England on educating young people? That is the reality of Labour.
	We must take on board the need to create economic growth and prosperity. Jobs for young people will not appear in isolation. Opportunities for young people will come as a result of economic growth and success—something we desperately need. That is why it is crucial that we pay tribute to this Government for taking the issue seriously. The Work programme, which has been mocked by Opposition Members, will ensure that payments are made on the basis of performance. That is a move in the right direction. It means that people will have to be in position for 12, 18 or 24 months before payments are made. That is a sign of confidence in the ability of the programme to get people into private employment.

Liam Byrne: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with care. Will he tell the House how he thinks the programme is going in his constituency, because long-term youth unemployment is up by 100%?

Guto Bebb: The shadow Secretary of State again makes the mistake of making a short-term point about unemployment in my constituency, without reference to the fact that the biggest employer in my constituency is the tourism industry, which is seasonal. As he wants to make an issue of youth unemployment in my constituency, it is worth pointing out that we have literally hundreds of people working in hotels, guesthouses and other tourism-related businesses who are hard working, successful and moving on. The sad fact is that a huge number of them are from eastern Europe. Those people have grasped their opportunity, but that opportunity has not been available to young people from my constituency because of the welfare state created by the Labour party, which is more interested in throwing money at a problem than solving it.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Guto Bebb: I will not take another intervention, because it would be unfair to my colleagues.
	The Labour party has created a dependency culture, rather than a culture of can-do and change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) made clear, young people should have the opportunity to take a job and to develop in that position. The Labour party’s policies have ensured that those jobs are not available. Many young people in my constituency have families and responsibilities, but because of the welfare system developed by the Labour party over 13 years, they are often better off not taking a job. The biggest change that the coalition Government are making is to ensure that when people take employment, they are better off. It is unacceptable that the Labour party believes that throwing money at people and allowing them to do nothing is more effective than changing the way we live and giving people the opportunity to make something of themselves in employment.

Ian Lavery: May I say at the outset that I am disappointed that we have only two hours to discuss youth unemployment and jobs, which is one of the most important issues in this country at the moment? I will use my four minutes to try to expose the myth that we are all in this together. Before the election, the now Prime Minister said that the north-east would be hit hardest and first, and that the public sector there was too big. What an absolute disgrace! It was an insult to everyone in the region, and what is more, only this week a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North think-tank stated that 32,000 public sector jobs have been lost in the north-east so far this Parliament, yet 24,000 public sector jobs are being created in the south-east of England and 8,000 in London. Where is the fairness in all this? How are we in this together? It is not right. Why is the north-east continually hammered by this coalition Government?

Richard Graham: rose—

Ian Lavery: Excuse me, but the hon. Gentleman has just come in. There are people who have been in here for ages.
	In my constituency, 20.7% of young people are not in education, employment or training. It was once a thriving mining community, but we now have unemployment levels of 7.7%. Over the past five years, there has been a 67% increase in the number of jobseeker’s allowance applications, and over the past 12 months, a 19.8% increase. The number of applications from those aged 24 and under has increased by 34% in 12 months. It is an absolute disgrace.
	The most horrendous statistic is that for every job vacancy in Wansbeck, there are 9.6 applicants. The jobs are not there for people. It is unacceptable, and we cannot continue to treat people like this. It has been said on numerous occasions, “Is this a price worth paying?” Do people believe that youth unemployment is a price worth paying? It is not. The lack of jobs and opportunities will see this country decline in the future. Young people should be seen as our future doctors, business men and women, nurses, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, sailors and council workers. We should treat them with a little decorum.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is right to point out what our young people should be able to expect from the future, but is not the reality that because of what is happening, there is so much despair and fear among young people—fear that they will never get a real job—that it is essential that we get action now to provide jobs, and that we do not just rely on promises and schemes? That is what will give them hope. Otherwise, they will find their fears and despair justified.

Ian Lavery: I agree wholeheartedly. The 9.6 people for every job in my constituency are now being threatened and told that if they do not secure employment, their benefits will be withdrawn. That is hardly a carrot-and-stick approach; it is basically a baseball-bat-over-the-head approach. Instead of encouraging people into employment, we are seeing quite the opposite.
	The Labour party has proposed a five-point plan for growth and jobs, and the Government parties would be well-advised to scrutinise it. What the Minister said absolutely appalled me: he said that they should not listen to the Labour party. Well, let me give him a message. I am here to represent hundreds and thousands of people unable to attract employment. The employment that is available is low-paid. On youth unemployment and jobs, the Government should be listening to everyone from across the parties. People are asking me, and are entitled to ask, whether this is a cynical, political attempt to attack the north-east region and them as individuals, because of a fundamental lack of support for the Government parties.

Katy Clark: The problems that my hon. Friend is describing do not just affect the north-east. Does he agree that Government Members seem to be in denial about the scale of the problem and the fact that it will get a lot worse if they do not change course?

Ian Lavery: That is exactly right, and the economy shows clearly that borrowing is up by £46 billion, that CPI inflation is up to 5.2% and that RPI inflation is up to 5.6%. We have the highest level of unemployment for 17 years, the highest level of unemployment among women since records began in 1988 and almost 1 million unemployed young people.
	We have to change course. Whether it is plan B, plan C, plan D, plan A plus or whatever, I say to the Government, please listen to what people are saying on the ground. Instead of saying, “We are not prepared to listen,” please listen to these people, who are desperate out there—the people who have been marching the streets of London, the disabled and the women, who I have already mentioned. Listen to what they have to say, please change course and let us see what can be delivered for the people who are most in need in the UK.

Mark Simmonds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), but the only point on which I agreed with him was when he said that this is a very serious issue, and that we need an extremely detailed and fundamental rethink of how we address unemployment.
	Every single person who is unemployed, whether young, middle-aged or old, experiences a personal tragedy, and we need to do as much as we possibly can
	to address the situation, but the fundamental point is that we will not create jobs unless we have macro-economic stability.
	To get macro-economic stability, we have to get the deficit under control, and the coalition Government must not change course. They must stick to the course that they have set, otherwise the economy will not grow, because controlling the structural deficit is a pre-requisite of economic growth, not a substitute for it.
	Of course there is growing unemployment, but youth unemployment grew by 40% between 1997 and 2010, so it is not a new problem or issue. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who speaks for the Opposition on this matter, made surreptitious use of statistics, with some of those that he gave painting a wholly inaccurate picture. Interestingly his only solution to the problem was more tax and more spend, the formula that clearly did not work under 13 years of the Labour party in government.

Graham Stuart: Is it not true that in Hull and other cities throughout the country, the previous Government ignored youth unemployment, which stayed steady even as the general economy boomed? The truth is that on too many estates the Labour party abandoned people, threw them on welfare and did not provide them with the employment or education that they needed to better themselves?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think I am correct in saying that 97% of current youth unemployment was inherited by this Government from the previous Labour Administration.
	I have three or four suggestions for what the Government might do in addition to the excellent job that they are already doing. The first suggestion is to provide a greater emphasis on lifelong learning through not just traditional learning theatres, but online learning in particular. Secondly, the costs to, and regulations on, businesses must be reduced. For example, businesses are being used for informal tax gathering, which is highly regressive and has a disproportionate impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby inhibiting their ability to create jobs. There needs to be a close look at exempting businesses from a raft of regulations and bureaucracy which has a negative impact on their ability to create jobs. We must also find mechanisms—I hope the Chancellor is looking at this—to incentivise businesses to invest, to create wealth and, therefore, to create jobs for young people and for others.
	Owing to the long-term nature of the problem, the education system clearly fails far too many young people. It is clear also from the rise in youth unemployment, which began long before the current economic crisis, that the education system did not meet employers’ needs, but the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) is doing an excellent job of trying to make businesses and education link up and perform in that way.
	The Government are absolutely right on their key policy areas, such as rolling out broadband to enable people to engage with technological businesses and innovation, and increasing the Work programme. It is absolutely right to involve independent sector providers to deliver personalised help. There is significant evidence
	in my constituency that the work providers and the Work programme are getting jobs for people whom the state structures had failed for up to 18 months beforehand. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to deliver improved apprenticeships. In my constituency they are up 67% this year, and in the east midlands the figure is 60%. They are significant achievements, and my hon. Friend should rightly be proud of them.
	The introduction of university technical colleges is absolutely right, and I hope that there will be many more of them. Then there is the new enterprise allowance and the link between volunteering and work experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) was right that it is important for people to get something on their CVs. A link with the voluntary sector may enable that to happen. The Government are on exactly the right lines. They need to continue and they must not be deterred from controlling the structural deficit.

Rachel Reeves: It is right that we should have the chance to debate youth unemployment today, as our economy continues to flatline and unemployment is rising. It is just a shame that neither the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions nor a single member of the Treasury Front-Bench team has bothered to turn up. How complacent and out of touch this Government are.
	The last time we debated the economy in this House was on the day when new figures showed that youth unemployment had reached a 17-year high, with 991,000 young people out of work. Next week we shall have an update on those numbers, but in the last few weeks the Government have done nothing to address the national youth unemployment crisis. It is almost two years since this country moved out of recession, yet the prospects for unemployment and youth unemployment are gloomier than ever. Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth, and called on the Government to introduce an alternative to their plans, which are hurting but not working. Businesses up and down the country are seeing demand hit. Young people out of work and facing trebled tuition fees are seeing the impact. Families struggling with high VAT and rising energy prices are feeling the impact. All are still waiting for a plan for jobs and growth from this Government. We are all waiting for some leadership from this out-of-touch Government on a jobs and growth plan internationally as well. Every day of waiting is a day wasted, with potential going untapped and opportunities squandered.

Richard Graham: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Can she explain to me how it was that during the 13 years of Labour Government, 5,600 private sector jobs were destroyed in my constituency of Gloucester?

Rachel Reeves: What I do know is that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as in mine, youth unemployment and long-term youth unemployment is going up under the watch of this Government.
	There has rightly been concern from all parts of the House today about youth unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose constituency has the highest youth unemployment in
	country, rightly talked about the impact on his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) gave a passionate speech about youth unemployment and its effect in the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who talked about people in his constituency being hammered by this Government’s policies. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has risen by 106% in just nine months, was right to talk about the need for a national insurance holiday for small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 81% in nine months, raised the prospect of Royal Bank of Scotland bonuses of £500 million this year, with no tax on bank bonuses to fund youth jobs—a policy proposed by the Labour party.

David Winnick: We have heard many eloquent speeches about unemployment from our right hon. and hon. Friends, unlike those from Government Members. In the 10 constituencies in England with the highest jobless rate for 18 to 24-year-olds, eight are in the west midlands, and of those eight, six are in the black country. We should bear in mind the devastation that is occurring once again, as in the 1980s, in the west midlands and the black country.

Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on his constituents. That is why we need a five-point plan for jobs and growth across the country, including the black country.
	Unemployment is at a 17-year high and youth unemployment is almost 1 million. Despite the complacency on the Government Benches, the Government must do something to tackle the crisis. Long-term youth unemployment is at its highest for a generation, with 120,000 young people out of work for more than six months, up a staggering 64% since January. The number of young women who are long-term unemployed has risen to 37,500—the highest level in a generation. Whatever Government Members say, the number of young people in long-term unemployment was falling when the coalition Government were formed and it is increasing on their watch.

Paul Maynard: Will the hon. Lady tell me in how many constituencies, according to the figures she requested from the House of Commons Library, did long-term youth unemployment fall between May 2010 and September 2011? I, too, have the figures.

Rachel Reeves: The answer is in a very small minority of constituencies. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys, long-term youth unemployment is up 233%, so enough of the complacency—he should be urging the Government for action rather than going along with their out-of-touch attitude.
	Throughout the country, the number of young people looking for work has increased in 196 out of 202 local authorities since September last year—97% of local authorities have rising youth unemployment. Even in the Minister’s constituency of South Holland and the Deepings, 50 more young people have been looking for
	a job for more than six months, which is a 71% increase since January. I see the impact in my constituency of Leeds West day in, day out: 105 extra young people have been looking for work for more than six months, which is a 66% increase. Those numbers speak of a devastating impact on the lives of individuals and families, and they are the result of this out-of-touch Government’s complacency on youth unemployment.
	Rising youth unemployment also shows that the Government’s plan A does not make economic sense. With unemployment at a 17-year high, inflation soaring and growth flatlining, the Government are set to borrow an extra £46 billion in this Parliament—that is before the Office for Budget Responsibility comes up with its revised forecast on 29 November. We are all paying the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on unemployment with higher Government borrowing and debt.

Robert Halfon: Will the hon. Lady answer the question that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did not answer when I asked him? Why did youth unemployment rise by hundreds of thousands on her watch and under her Government despite all the taxpayers’ money that was spent on one scheme or another?

Rachel Reeves: With long-term youth unemployment up 140% in nine months, the hon. Gentleman should be asking questions of this Government rather than looking back to the past. The reality is that unemployment was falling when this Government came into power; now it is rising. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative-led Government.
	The Government like to blame anyone but themselves—that seems to go for Government Back Benchers as well. First they blamed the snow, then they blamed the royal wedding, and now they blame the eurozone, but the truth is that the economy was flatlining and unemployment was rising before the eurozone crisis hit. They needed a plan for jobs and growth before the problems in the eurozone erupted, and they need to change course now more than ever. It is time they took responsibility for their actions.
	In the wake of this national crisis of youth unemployment, what have the Government done? More than a year ago, their very first act was to abolish the future jobs fund, which was worse than doing nothing. The future jobs fund got 100,000 young people into work. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that that same future jobs fund was a good scheme. Why did he cancel it, and why did he cancel it before he had a replacement? The Work programme—the Government’s replacement—is no substitute for the future jobs fund. It has one third less funding and is making less of a difference to young people’s lives.
	We need jobs and growth and young people need hope and opportunity. They deserve a plan that gets the economy moving and improves the prospects of those leaving school, college and university. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth. A £2 billion tax on bank bonuses will both support the construction industry and guarantee a job for 100,000 young people. What could be fairer than using some of
	the record bank bonuses to get young people back to work? Bringing forward long-term investment projects, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned such as cutting VAT temporarily to give immediate help to our high streets and struggling families; cutting VAT to 5% on home improvements; and a one-year national insurance holiday for every small firm taking on extra workers will make a huge difference to small businesses and to the 991,000 young people who are out of work today. This is a five-point alternative that offers hope and unlocks opportunity. It is a five-point plan that would get young people back to work, get businesses hiring and get our economy growing. I urge hon. Members to support this action for the sake of the young people up and down this country who have been tossed on the scrap heap by this Government, just as they were in the 1980s and 1990s under Tory Governments of the past.
	It is time to learn the lessons. We cannot afford the cost of spiralling unemployment, or of young people leaving school and college without the hope of getting a job. Call it what you will—plan A-plus, plan B or Labour’s five-point plan—but for the sake of 1 million young people waiting for action, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

John Hayes: How could we not be moved by what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about the plight of young people in their constituencies? Let there be no dispute about this: there is no denial and there is no complacency. [ Interruption. ] Of course this matters to all hon. Members in this House, and it ill befits Opposition Members to suggest that they have a monopoly on care.

Ian Austin: Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes: I will not give way.
	Hearing Labour Members talk about generational joblessness reminded me of the plight that my father and my grandfather suffered in the ’30s when they were jobless. The story now, as we have heard from Members across the House, is no less tragic than it was then. That is why the Government are doing something about it.
	All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate must be disappointed by the motion. Like a worn-out conjuror’s paraphernalia, it is all smoke and mirrors. It resembles the economic policy that the last Government practised when the shadow Chancellor was their senior economic adviser, and we all know where that led. It led to the point at which the shadow Secretary of State, who introduced this debate, left his famous letter saying “There’s no money left.” We can see the shadow Chancellor’s footprints and fingerprints all over the motion.

Liam Byrne: I am genuinely grateful for the tone that the Minister is trying to strike, but does he understand the signal that it sends, in a debate on youth unemployment, when the Department for Work and
	Pensions Minister cannot be bothered to turn up for more than half the debate and the Secretary of State is nowhere to be seen?

John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman obviously wants to make party political and partisan points. However, I was suggesting, perhaps unfashionably—perhaps this is not typical for the Opposition—that this matter goes beyond party divides, and that we should be united in our concern and in a call for action.
	The shadow Chancellor is not without redeeming skills. I understand that, when he was at public school, he was good at playing the violin. So Balls fiddles while Byrne roams around talking down Britain’s chance to succeed.
	Let me deal with the three principal points that have emerged from the debate—first, the future jobs fund. It was by far the most expensive part of the September guarantee package, at £6,500 for each individual, and 50% of the people who were under the influence of the fund found themselves unemployed eight months later. That is why we questioned its value—not because it did no good, but because it did not do enough good and was simply not cost effective.
	The second big issue that has been raised today is that of NEETS. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) must know that the NEETS figures are part of a deep, long-term structural issue. Throughout the good years, the NEETs figures were at an unacceptable level. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the figures that in 2009, on Labour’s watch, the number of NEETs rose to 925,000. The truth is that youth unemployment involves long-term structural and systemic issues, and this debate was a chance for us to consider them seriously. Instead, what we have heard from the Opposition was little more than party political knockabout.
	The third point to emerge from the debate relates to apprenticeships. Let us deal with them head-on. I shall leave aside the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has rubbished all those in his constituency doing apprenticeships in their 20s—people like those at Jaguar Land Rover or at BT.

Liam Byrne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: No, you had your chance.
	The right hon. Gentleman rubbished people at BT, Honda and British Gas—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] I give way to him.

Liam Byrne: Will the Minister tell the House by how much youth unemployment will fall as a result of his apprenticeship programme?

John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer: over two years, the growth in apprenticeships for people under the age of 19 has been 29% and for people aged between 19 and 24 it has been 64%. Labour could only dream of those figures, and would have died for them in government. The number of apprenticeships for young people is growing. There are new opportunities, and while Labour is deliberating, the Conservatives and Liberals are delivering. That is the difference.

Edward Balls: Does it not tell us everything we need to know that when there is a debate in the House on tax support to create jobs for young people, there is not one Treasury Minister on the Front Bench for the opening and closing speeches? Is that not a matter of great shame for the Government and an embarrassment for the Department for Work and Pensions?

John Hayes: I offer the shadow Chancellor this, and I do so fraternally: if just occasionally he would temper his belligerent bombast with a degree of humility about the advice he gave the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor, he might manage to stop his reputation flatlining.
	The motion shows that the old conjuror has learned no new tricks. Once again, we have profligacy dressed up as prudence. It is public policy transvestism: from a distance, the promise of tax breaks may look alluring; only up close can we make out the underlying 5 o’clock shadow of debt and downturn. That is all the 5 o’clock shadow Cabinet can offer.
	Some people think that many of the Opposition Front Benchers have been over-promoted, but I give them a second chance. I have a very small bet at very long odds that there is an outside chance that some of them may make a half-decent job of it.
	This Government are acting on apprenticeships. We are acting on the Work programme. We are acting on work experience. We are working on getting people into jobs. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government. We care too, but we act as well.

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.  36 ).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed  to .
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 234, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.
	That the draft International Development Association (Sixteenth Replenishment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.
	That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.
	That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved. —(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Urban Development

That the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2011, dated 3 October, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Free Fruit for Young Children

Luciana Berger: I rise to present a petition from the 195 children at Northway primary and nursery school in Wavertree in my constituency. The children are very concerned about the cancelling of the free fruit that they receive during their morning break, because of cuts to local authority funding.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of children from Northway Primary and Nursery School,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the cancelling of free fruit for young children due to cuts to local authority funding; notes that fruit provides children with the essential vitamins they need to keep strong, fit, active and healthy; further notes that as a snack, fruit provides children with extra energy between breakfast and lunch which helps them to learn and declares that the Petitioners believe that the free fruit scheme may be the only way that some children are able to get fruit, as parents in financial difficulty may not be able to afford to buy fruit for their children.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its deep cuts to local authority funding so that Liverpool City Council can afford to maintain its free fruit scheme in schools.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000976]

Bradford-on-Avon Station Ticket Office

Duncan Hames: I wish to present this petition on behalf of the users of Bradford-on-Avon station, who are campaigning to keep the station’s ticket office open, following publication of the McNulty report, which recommends its closure. They value the service it provides to the local economy, as well as to rail users. A petition in similar terms has been signed by about 1,200 local residents.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of users of Bradford-on-Avon station,
	Declares that the Petitioners regard the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office as an essential service and an essential part of the town, further declares that the Petitioners believe that it is used frequently and in preference to the ticket machine, particularly by older customers, and that it is widely valued for the information provided and for the services of the booking office staff in opening and closing the wonderfully refurbished waiting rooms.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office remains open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000978]

Guisborough Royal Mail delivery Office

Tom Blenkinsop: I wish to present a petition in opposition to the closure of the Guisborough delivery office. More than 5,000 petitioners made up of residents, business owners and Communication Workers Union Royal Mail workers have signed the petition in opposition to the
	privatisation of the Royal Mail and the proposed closure of Guisborough’s delivery office. There has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local business, or the work force and their trade union, the CWU. No proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area. Royal Mail’s proposals to move operations to Redcar from Guisborough are unproven, unworkable and unwanted.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Guisborough,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Guisborough Royal Mail Delivery Office and the Government’s policy of Royal Mail privatisation; further declares that the Petitioners feel that there has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local businesses, the workforce and their trade Union, the Communication Workers Union; and declares that no proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the Petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that Royal Mail consults with local partners and reviews the proposed closure of Guisborough Delivery Office accordingly.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000977]

Blaydon Races 150th Anniversary

Chi Onwurah: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Blaydon races 150 organising group and its supporters throughout the north-east. More than 3,000 people have signed a similar online petition. The petition calls on this House to throw its weight behind the campaign for a fitting celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Blaydon races, which falls in June next year. Specifically, the petition asks the House to urge the local authorities of Newcastle and Gateshead to work together to ensure that the 150th anniversary of this great north-east anthem is celebrated with a properly scaled and co-ordinated programme of activities.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of the organising group of the Blaydon Races 150th Anniversary Campaign, namely Mr Steven Campion, Mr David Minikin, Mr Aidan Oswell, Mrs Lisa Christer Ovenden, Mr Andrew Ridley and Mr Anthony Pearson,
	Sheweth, that the Petitioners are campaigning to encourage all those who cherish the history, culture and traditions of their beloved Tyneside to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Mr George Ridley's famous Blaydon Races anthem in June 2012.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to actively encourage the local authorities of Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne to work together to coordinate a properly-scaled programme of appropriate celebrations.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000979]

Keynsham Railway Station Access

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I ask to present this petition from Mr Heard and Ms Friend, supported by more than 1,000 residents who live in and around Keynsham, in the county of Somerset. The petitioners are concerned by the poor facilities for the
	disabled at Keynsham railway station. Better access has been promised but never created. They therefore ask the Secretary of State to urge the relevant authorities to ensure that this takes place.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of North East Somerset,
	Sheweth that the Petitioners believe that there are inadequate facilities for disabled people who wish to use Keynsham railway station.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to encourage FirstGroup plc to provide adequate facilities for disabled people at Keynsham railway station.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	[P000980]

CLUSTER MUNITIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Martin Caton: I have sought this debate because I am very concerned at current moves within the UN convention on certain conventional weapons to adopt a new protocol that would ban some older and less sophisticated cluster munitions, but allow continued use of some weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians. This would be a major step backwards, as it would effectively undermine the convention on cluster munitions that prohibits ownership, manufacture and transfer of all cluster weapons, because they all kill and maim civilian children, women and men when they are used. Some 111 states have now joined this treaty, which requires a complete ban.
	However, before I rehearse my argument on that issue, it might help if I take a step back and look at what cluster munitions are, what they do and whom they do it to, and describe how the convention on cluster munitions was achieved and what has happened since to take its provisions forward. Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched shells that eject multiple smaller sub-munitions or bomblets. Some have been developed for use against runways, armour and even electrical transmission systems to locate a specific type of target. However, their primary purpose in most circumstances in which they are used is to kill people—ostensibly enemy combatants, but in practice many others as well.
	Cluster bombs can contain variable numbers of sub-munitions, but most often that means very large numbers. Each sub-munition contains explosives, a copper cone, a pre-stressed fragmentation sheath and an incendiary sponge. The main bomb breaks open in mid-air and the bomblets are released, effectively carpet-bombing an area the size of two or three football fields. Anybody within that area—military or civilian—is likely to be torn apart. Tragically, in conflict after conflict, because of where they have been used, many of the victims of that weaponry—even at the time of attack—have been innocent children, women and men who were non-combatants.
	However, that is only the first part of the story. There is a longer-term impact, because many of the bomblets do not work properly. They fail to explode on immediate impact and are left on the ground after the end of hostilities, to be trodden on by farmers returning to their fields, pulled up when families are cleaning rubble from their damaged homes, or even picked up as playthings by children attracted by their shape and shine. They remain lethal.
	Cluster weapons date back to the second world war, but were used most extensively by the United States in the Vietnam war, where villages were carpet-bombed with cluster munitions. In fact, in Vietnam the US sometimes employed cluster bombs that were designed not to explode on impact. They were called area denial ordnance, and when they were dropped they were effectively land-mining an area from the sky. That was deliberate, of course; but all too often ever since, the result of using cluster munitions has not been too different.
	Revulsion at what cluster munitions were doing to the ordinary people of Vietnam led in the early 1970s to calls for an international treaty. In 1974, Algeria, Austria, Egypt, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Norway, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and Yugoslavia jointly put forward a document that included a section headed “Anti-personnel fragmentation weapons”. It said:
	“Anti-personnel cluster warheads or other devices with many bomblets, which act through the ejection of a greater number of small-calibred fragments or pellets to be prohibited for use”.
	Sadly, that initiative got nowhere at that time and the people of Vietnam are still living with the aftermath of that mass cluster bombing, 40 years later. Even now, every year, hundreds of Vietnamese civilians are killed or injured by American sub-munitions from cluster bombs dropped all that time ago. Some 22 countries have been affected by cluster munition contamination, with particular problems of unexploded ordnance in Indochina, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

John Stanley: Having visited southern Lebanon myself shortly after the ceasefire took place and after the Israelis had carried out a massive sowing of cluster munitions, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely right to point out the terrible dangers to men, women and children from these awful weapons, which are primarily used with the aim of, and have the effect of, killing and maiming civilians.

Martin Caton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is absolutely right, and I shall say a little about what happened in Lebanon.
	In 2006, the charity Handicap International produced a report documenting more than 10,000 known civilian casualties from cluster munitions, but it believed that the true figure could be as much as 10 times as high as that. What there can be no doubt about is that cluster munitions have caused excessive and disproportionate harm to civilians in every conflict in which they have been used over the past 40 years. People across the world realised this, especially when they saw on their television screens the use of millions of these weapons by the state of Israel against Lebanon and the consequences for its people. Sixty per cent. of Israeli cluster strikes were in built-up areas, with the inevitable impact on innocent human life. At the end of the conflict it was estimated that there could have been as many as a million unexploded cluster sub-munitions littering roads, schools, wells, houses, gardens and fields, taking their toll on the Lebanese population. A clean-up operation continues, in which the UK Department for International Development is playing a valuable and important role, but that, we should not forget, is a diversion of development aid money from other humanitarian projects.
	At the end of that conflict, cluster munitions, as an issue, had gone up the political agenda across the face of the planet. Civil society was brilliantly organised by the Cluster Munition Coalition of more than 350 organisations in more than 100 countries. They found politicians who were willing to listen, ready to be convinced and prepared to act. From 2000 until 2007 attempts had been made to negotiate on cluster munitions at the UN convention on certain conventional weapons, and this
	had been blocked every time by the United States and others. When in 2006 a mandate to negotiate an instrument on cluster munitions, proposed by 27 states, was again prevented, Norway and the other countries involved decided to go outside the UN to move the issue forward.
	That was the start of what became known as the Oslo process, starting with a conference in that city in February 2007. In doing that, Norway was following the example of Canada, which had used the same approach in securing the landmine treaty 10 years earlier. The Oslo process was quite remarkable. By getting people and their Governments to address the impact of cluster munitions, we saw quite radical changes of position over about a year, not least in this country.
	On 23 November 2006, I secured an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on cluster munitions in which I urged the then Labour Government to play a leading role in the Oslo process and to take the initiative by announcing the UK’s intention to renounce all cluster munitions. The then Minister of State, Ministry of Defence who responded described cluster munitions as
	“lawful weapons that provide a unique capability against certain types of legitimate target”,
	and went on to say:
	“Our military commanders judge the degree of force to employ to achieve the mission, subject always to strict compliance with international humanitarian law. We believe that that is a sufficiently adequate body of law. It puts considerable constraints on the use of cluster munitions.”
	He added that
	“a total ban on the use of all types of sub-munition would have an adverse impact on the UK’s operational effectiveness.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 802.]

Jim Shannon: If all those countries have signed the letter asking for these munitions not to be used, what action does the hon. Gentleman think should be taken against the manufacturers, because that is where the key lies? If they cannot sell them, they will not manufacture them.

Martin Caton: In the 111 countries that are signatories to the Oslo convention on cluster munitions, manufacturing, stockpiling or transferring them is clearly illegal and states should act against such practices. Our problem is the countries that want to hang on to their cluster munitions, such as the United States, Russia and China in particular. That is the point of my debate. I think that they are trying to use the convention in the UN to enable them to hang on to the munitions, and I will move on to that point later.
	In November 2006 the Labour Government’s position was that we need cluster munitions, but by May 2008 the previous Prime Minister was in Dublin arguing very effectively with Ministers from other states for a total ban. An historic agreement was struck on 28 May to establish the convention that now has 111 members, and more are joining as time goes on.
	Let us think about that. Many people knew that the issue of cluster munitions needed to be addressed for at least the last third of the 20th century and the first few years of this century. In just five years, remarkable progress had been made and continues to be made. The convention on cluster munitions that came out of the Oslo process is now in its second year of implementation and its momentum remains strong. There were two new
	accessions in September and three new ratifications. The same month saw Lebanon host the second meeting of states parties to the convention, in which 34 countries that have not yet signed the convention participated. That is a dynamic that I think needs to be encouraged.
	That is what worries me about what the United States and others are now proposing. Having blocked use of the UN convention on certain conventional weapons for years, they have proposed a draft protocol that would ban certain cluster munitions produced before 1980. It is due to be debated between 14 and 25 November in Geneva. There are three possible outcomes: adoption of the draft protocol, ending negotiations with no result, or the adoption of a political agreement that is not legally binding but allows interim steps.
	My objective is to urge the Government actively to resist adoption of the protocol. In doing so, and in fairness, I want to recognise the commitment of the Government, like their predecessors, to a complete ban as espoused in the convention on cluster munitions. I do not doubt Ministers’ respect for its integrity or their keenness to get every country to join. However, from written answers to questions I have tabled, and from what colleagues and I picked up in a meeting on Monday with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), I am worried that the Department may be in danger of making an error of judgment. I put it no more strongly that that, because I know that deliberations are ongoing.
	My concern is that the Government feel that the Oslo process has stalled and that, therefore, any initiative that allows non-signatories to the CCM to commit to some renunciation of some cluster weapons is welcome because it might allow more progress towards the goal that all Members of the House want to see: a global cluster munitions ban. I understand that thinking but am convinced that it is quite wrong for a number of reasons. The proposed protocol seriously risks encouraging greater use of cluster munitions that have been banned by most countries because it would remove the current stigma that has been developing against the use of cluster munitions—the same stigma developed with landmines, with very positive results. Some welcome the protocol because it would allow a red light for certain old cluster weapons, which would mean the removal of more of those weapons, but there is a reverse side to the coin.
	First, when we say that only some munitions are unacceptable, implicitly we are saying that others are acceptable, which means that they get the green light. For the draft protocol, that would mean the United States’ BLU-97 getting the okay. That is the cluster bomb that caused such civilian suffering in Serbia and Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Amazingly, it would also give the okay to the Israeli M85, which was responsible for the slaughter in Lebanon. That cannot be a step forward.
	Secondly, the protocol would also hamper efforts to achieve universal adherence to the convention on cluster munitions. The states that want the protocol want it to avoid making progress on the CCM, not to facilitate it. Thirdly, banning cluster munitions is increasingly making military sense, because they do not deliver. That is why 22 of the 28 NATO states have banned them.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and admire the passion with which he presents his case. Does he think that the UK’s position, given the role that the previous Prime Minister played in the Oslo convention, is looked at with particular significance by other nations?

Martin Caton: The role of the UK Government in Geneva could be critical. It is vital that they show a strength of will against what the United States and others are trying to do to protect the integrity of the current convention.
	The draft protocol is not compatible or complementary with the convention on cluster munitions. The latter bans these weapons; the former allows for their use, production and transfer. The proposed protocol would—as I believe it is designed to do—undermine the convention on cluster munitions that came out of the Oslo process. It would set up a rival legal framework for cluster weapons under the auspices of the UN and would not remove a single weapon likely to be used in conflict. All the weapons banned would be 40 years old by the time the protocol required their removal, and they would be ready for decommissioning anyway. However, the draft protocol would legitimise the use of much more dangerous cluster weapons. It would be a body blow for the approach that drove the Oslo process, which was a humanitarian-centred partnership between civil society and Government that is a valuable model for future progress on multilateral disarmament.
	The draft protocol contradicts existing international humanitarian law and is not the best way to engage with existing states that have stockpiles of cluster munitions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has pointed out that if it is established, this protocol would set a highly negative precedent. It would be the first time in history that international humanitarian law has moved backwards. I urge the Government, whatever they do, to resist this protocol. It will not move us forward; quite the opposite, it will take us back and reverse so much that has been achieved in the past five years.
	I understand the Government’s desire to find ways to encourage recalcitrant states to begin the process of decommissioning cluster munitions. The best way to do that is by encouraging the development of a political declaration or plan of action stating that intention, rather than by creating an alternative international legal edifice that threatens our existing convention, which, in fairness, is delivering within a pretty speedy time frame. The draft protocol is not about cluster munitions disarmament; it is a fig leaf behind which the US, China, Russia and others intend to hide, so that they can continue to rely on dangerous, indiscriminate ordnance that will kill more innocent civilians if we let them get away with it.

David Lidington: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing the debate and on the way he has for some years in this place consistently championed the cause of eliminating cluster munitions from the world. He has been tireless in drawing the matter to the House’s attention and in insisting that it should be high on the political agenda of successive Governments. I also want
	to acknowledge the presence here and contributions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Wells (Tessa Munt).
	I start by stating unequivocally that the UK and the Government remain fully committed to the objective of ridding the world entirely of cluster munitions. As the hon. Member for Gower said, the UK was one of the original 46 states to join the negotiating process for a convention to prohibit the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of such munitions. Those negotiations ultimately led to the coming into force of the convention on cluster munitions.
	It is fair to say that the previous Government and previous Prime Minister are entitled to take pride in the part that they played in that. I remember speaking from the Opposition Front Bench when the Bill that became the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 was going through its stages in the House of Commons. I am glad that that legislation was taken through without amendment and with almost universal cross-party support.
	The 2010 Act paved the way for this country to ratify the convention, enabling us to become the 32nd state party to the convention in November last year. It comprehensively implemented in UK law the obligations set out in the convention and it prohibited activity including the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions from taking place within the UK, and by any UK national wherever in the world they might be. The Act also established appropriate penalties and enforcement mechanisms, up to a 14-year prison sentence.
	The convention on cluster munitions is rightly recognised as one of the most significant disarmament treaties of recent years. It is a great testament to what can be achieved by states and non-governmental organisations working together. I want to make it absolutely clear that, for this Government, the convention remains the gold standard for work on cluster munitions—the standard that we want all countries to aspire to and to accept and to which this country is determined to adhere.
	We take our obligations under the convention very seriously. Immediately after signing the convention in May 2008, the United Kingdom withdrew all cluster munitions from operational service. That represented some 38 million sub-munitions. The United Kingdom then began the active destruction of these stockpiles in anticipation of ratification. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that so far we have already destroyed nearly two thirds of those stockpiles, or some 25 million sub-munitions. Under current plans, it is our intention to destroy the remainder by the end of 2013, or five years ahead of the deadline imposed by the CCM. This represents an early and dedicated effort to realise as quickly as possible, and in a safe, secure and environmentally responsible manner, our obligation to destroy munitions that are prohibited by the convention. We have shared the experience that we have gained and the lessons learned from that stockpile destruction programme with other signatories, and those countries have appreciated that advice and assistance.
	At the same time, we have played a full role in delivering on our treaty obligations regarding international co-operation and assistance. Between 2010 and 2013,
	the United Kingdom will spend more than £30 million on mine action work. This includes the clearance of unexploded ordnance, including cluster munitions, around the world. In addition to this programme, we have allocated significant additional funding for mine action work in Afghanistan and Libya. The provision of this assistance is based on our published mine action strategy, which includes three main objectives: first, to release land affected by the explosive remnants of war so that it can make a measurable contribution to the socio-economic development of affected communities; secondly, to help Governments to take full responsibility for their national mine action programmes; and thirdly, to improve value for money in mine action.
	With this strategy, we are concentrating our support on the states in greatest need. As recognised in the Vientiane action plan agreed at the first meeting of the states party to the convention on cluster munitions, the United Kingdom believes that particular attention should be paid to the world’s poorest, least developed states. Our strategy therefore gives priority to work that helps those countries first. Specific examples of assistance programmes include £27 million for two partners—the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—principally for operations in Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, South Sudan and Vietnam; and a further £5 million granted to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund that is supporting mine action in countries including Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Laos and Mozambique. We are fully committed to international co-operation and assistance. In just six months of our sponsored projects starting in Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique and Vietnam, 2.5 million square metres of land considered a high priority by those Governments for their national planning purposes had been cleared and returned to communities for productive use.
	In addition to these efforts, the Government are fully committed to seeking a global ban on cluster munitions. That is a Government priority, and we continue to promote the universalisation of the CCM during all relevant bilateral meetings, as well as in multilateral forums.
	Most recently, the UK, in partnership with non-governmental organisations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, hosted a workshop for Commonwealth countries, which was opened by my noble friend Lord Howell. The UK remains fully committed to the convention on cluster munitions and to a world free of cluster munitions. That is the standard we shall adhere to, that all states should aspire to and that we will continue to promote.
	We cannot ignore the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman said, according to some estimates, 85% to 90% of the world’s stockpiles of cluster munitions are held by countries that are not parties to the Oslo agreements and to the convention. Nor can we ignore the fact that, sadly, there is little prospect of the non-Oslo states becoming parties to the convention on cluster munitions any time soon. That is a matter of profound regret. We continue to urge those countries, from the greatest to the smallest, to move forward and join the CCM.
	It is in that context that negotiations have been under way for some time for a draft protocol VI on cluster munitions, within the convention on certain conventional weapons. The UK, along with the vast majority of
	signatories to the convention on cluster munitions, has participated constructively in those negotiations, but it has done so with a clear objective. We are determined to ensure that any protocol on cluster munitions that emerges from the talks for adoption by the CCW parties is complementary to and does not contradict the rights and obligations of states parties to the convention on cluster munitions. We also want to ensure that the additional humanitarian benefit that any proposed protocol would deliver is significant and demonstrable.
	We think that working with the world’s major producers and users of cluster munitions towards a full prohibition—I emphasise that last phrase—is entirely consistent with our obligations under the CCM and that it would be irresponsible of us to refuse to engage with the countries that we wish to persuade to move towards adoption and implementation of the CCM, but which have so far refused to do so.

Martin Caton: I can see that the Government might be able to find a form of words that does not apparently contradict the CCM. However, these countries obviously will not give us a protocol that includes a complete ban, so what will happen in practice is that a green light will be given to some of the worst munitions, such as the M-85. In practice, if the protocol goes through, it will contradict the existing convention and it will be very dangerous.

David Lidington: Negotiations are under way and we have a seat at the table. I think that we are right to take part in those talks. However, we are a long way from seeing a protocol that we regard as worth debating or as acceptable in any way.
	I will go into a little more detail. The negotiations on protocol VI have produced a draft protocol that would see states that agreed to be bound by it take on a legally binding obligation to prohibit the use of pre-1980 stocks of cluster munitions. We reckon that that could account for a third of the world’s stockpile of these munitions. The draft protocol, as it currently stands—of course, it may be subject to change—would also create obligations regarding victim assistance, clearance of cluster munition remnants and reporting on stockpiles.
	Some of those things, of themselves, would be a step forward, but we are disappointed by the progress achieved during negotiations on a draft protocol VI. Our approach to those talks remains unchanged. We will participate in negotiations at the CCW review conference this month, with the aim of getting the best possible result, and we will be guided by our determination to deliver a significant humanitarian outcome and, crucially, not to undermine the progress made under the Oslo treaty. We will therefore continue to press the world’s users and producers to give up more, to be more transparent and to be explicit in their commitment to work towards a world entirely free of cluster munitions.
	Given that negotiations are ongoing and this review is about to start, it would not be right for me to go into further detail about the UK’s negotiating position at the Geneva conference, or to speculate on what the outcome of those negotiations might be. I can tell the House that the UK will take a view based on whatever final draft protocol might result from the negotiations between the CCW parties, but the UK Government remain firm in their commitment to the integrity of the CCM, to maintaining it as the gold standard and to ensuring that nothing that might be agreed—it is hypothetical at the moment—for protocol VI to the CCW undermines or contradicts countries’ obligations under the CCM. That is how we propose to take things forward.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned  without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).
	Correction
	Official Report, 8 November 2011, c.216: the intervention ascribed to Andrew Stephenson should have been Stuart Andrew (Pudsey).